Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Walter, Florida on November 1, 2009:

I think it's horrible and a shame it happened but have to ask a question. Where was her husband, where was her family? Any kind of contest run by a radio/TV station has it's risks or why would they run them. She signed a release form.

How does money bring her back?

---

Who cares where her husband was? Is he supposed to watch her at all times? And who says that contests have to have risks to people's lives? No one said money would bring her back, but when corporations commit gross negligence that results in someone dying, what else would you have the jury do? -rc

Posted by Phil, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. on November 1, 2009:

Yet what is the answer to this problem, Randy?

These were grown adults voluntarily submitting themselves to this type of treatment, and there is more and more of it going on every day. Do we require that the sponsoring entity submit their plan to some watchdog group or governing entity for approval before going ahead, or do we continue to expect grown adults to be ultimately responsible for their own choices in life? Personally, I believe in this age of instant access to information that the latter would be my chosen path in such an instance.

---

I'm not suggesting oversight, I'm suggesting that radio stations use common sense when they promote contests. This one shrugged off real dangers, and I'm quite sure didn't adequately inform contestants of those dangers. (I can't believe the release forms were anything but generic -- I doubt anyone believes their lawyer wrote up a specific one for this contest, knowing those dangers, and didn't strongly object to the obvious risks.) Is the expectation of reasonable care too much to ask? -rc

Posted by Kim, Sapulpa, OK on November 1, 2009:

What I can't help thinking is this:

If the radio station had run the stunt as life-threatening, would the outcome have been different?

In other words, if the radio station had notified the contestants of the similar deaths and specific risks/results of prior cases, and billed the stunt as something along the lines of "Would you chance death for a Wii?" and people STILL played, would the jury's verdict have been different?

I'm willing to wage that in our world today, the Jury would have said, she knew what she was doing, therefore, she accepted the consequences of her actions.

Here is what I'm struggling with though: It's really the same thing as Russian Roulette isn't it? I mean, it may be a bigger bullet-cylinder with more empty spaces and only the one bullet (less probability of certain death or damage) but there's still a bullet - the possibility itself still exists.

And yes, I'm quite aware that there are certain risks associated with doing anything....people have died being struck by an airplane while reading a newspaper in their own living room.

What would the Jury have thought if the station handed out loaded weapons to each contestant and asked them to pull the trigger?

I don't know why, but it is so easy to lose perspective in our world today.

Is it all about the probability? People tell me I worry too much.

---

Well, to answer the question at the top, yes: I think that at least in this case, the jury would have made a different decision. But I'm not confident the decision would have been $0.... -rc

Posted by Susan, Florida on November 3, 2009:

Responding to Walter:

Money won't bring the woman back, but remember, her children are minus a parent for the rest of their lives. That's worth some punitive damage. Also, the husband will need to pay daycare, make up for her income, perhaps pay for therapy for the children and himself, etc. Death of a parent is incredibly hard on a family.

Posted by Barbara, Davis, CA right next to Sacto on November 3, 2009:

Sadly, many of us heard at least part of the show, and were thinking "That is sooo stupid!" Registered nurses were calling in, suggesting they stop. But they had goldfish swallowing in the '40's over radio, didn't they? There's always going to be someone who chooses to do some dumb stunt, and there's always going to be someone to provide the venue for it. The saddest part is the "innocent" - those who don't follow something to its logical or possible end, and get themselves into trouble. In the same vein, a 15 year old boy just died after falling from an 8 story parking garage in Sacramento. It is believed he was participating in "parkour" - an athletic, death-defying action game wherein you jump, tumble, climb, and hopefully survive. It's an urban challenge game. What do we do? Wrap everyone in cotton batting and forbid them to move?

Posted by Bob - Renton, WA on November 3, 2009:

I knew someone who died this way in jail, so I would be aware of it. However, I doubt if very many people really understand the danger. Dying? From drinking water? Come on!

If you're going to run a contest like this you need to 1) make sure you understand any health risks there may be and 2) make darn sure that the contestants understand them as well. I'm not a fan of frivolous law-suits, but I think this one just may have been justified.

Posted by Rick Kabul Afghanistan on November 3, 2009:

Radio and TV stations hold these sorts of contests because they increase ratings. One where a death occurs simply makes the remaining contests that much more irresistible to a certain sort of person. A lot of reality shows are not much better in terms of causing humiliation and creating dangerous situations for fun and profit.

What does it say about us as a society when we are collectively willing to look in on and listen to people putting themselves through dangerous and humiliating stunts for small prizes?

Posted by Walter, Florida on November 3, 2009:

Reply to Susan,

I agree with you 100% about one parent family now. But when are people going to take care of themselves? I talk from experience in that my wife died sudden over 32 years ago. I raised 7 children by myself so I understand one parent family. This could not have happened in one day if she had to sign a release. Where was her family, where was her husband? Did he go along with it? There are so many questions that should be answered.

Posted by Bob, Renton on November 3, 2009:

Oh, and the parkour thing: I think we can agree just by watching it that it's dangerous. Drinking water? Not so much. If I hadn't had an acquaintance who died from it, I wouldn't have thought there was a risk. The problem wasn't only how dangerous this was, but the fact that they didn't TELL anyone how dangerous it was. If you are apprised of the fact, it's your problem, but you need to know the risk first.

Posted by Bob in Bloomington, IL on November 4, 2009:

This was a just lawsuit. If the radio station had informed the contestants of the dangers of what they were about to do that would be different but they didn't. They also should have had invited or requested medical staff be present during the event. Those actions would have both provided for anything that could happen to the participants and curtailed any legal action. The radio station did neither, therefore they are negligent.