Women Dies Trying To Win A Wii

[Necromancer]

@ Dark Fact:  I've had green tea ice cream before, and it's damn good stuff.  That comment was my pathetic attempt at a Homer Simpson comment.  I guess the drooling smiley didn't translate too well.

Back To Topic:  I saw on MSN that ten employees have been fired from the radio station so far.  It looks like they are trying to limit their liability.  While simply drinking water is not harmful - water intoxication can be dangerous.  Fatalities are rare, but it isn't that uncommon for medical care being given for hyponatremia.  In the article that I read, one of the other contestants stated that she appeared sick.  It's been less than two years since the Chico State student's death, so the radio station should have known that she needed medical attention.  The other side of the coin is that she should have sought medical attention before going home.

[kungfukid]

@ Dark Fact:  I've had green tea ice cream before, and it's damn good stuff.  That comment was my pathetic attempt at a Homer Simpson comment.  I guess the drooling smiley didn't translate too well.

Back To Topic:  I saw on MSN that ten employees have been fired from the radio station so far.  It looks like they are trying to limit their liability.  While simply drinking water is not harmful - water intoxication can be dangerous.  Fatalities are rare, but it isn't that uncommon for medical care being given for hyponatremia.  In the article that I read, one of the other contestants stated that she appeared sick.  It's been less than two years since the Chico State student's death, so the radio station should have known that she needed medical attention.  The other side of the coin is that she should have sought medical attention before going home.

Yup, you're correct. Even if the waiver did say that you waive the possibility of negligence on either side it doesn't matter - because it would be considered an unfair contract term and thus void. (In the US & UK, the law does not recognise that you can consent to your own harm or danger in negligence cases, it is inferred that you don't consent for a negligent act to be carried out upon you). Plus, as mentioned, in the summer especially hospitals DO get plenty of cases of people who have taken on board too much liquid - it is actually pretty common (although people don't often die). But in a case like this, this sort of competitiion would have to have had a risk analysis done and passed by health and safety before the competition. AND it is entirely forseeable in a water drinking and holding competition (especially one carried out on media such as radio or TV adding to the pressure) that someone might drink enough to become ill! In my eyes (and the eyes of my law degree), that constitutes negligence in allowing the competition to proceed & especially in not having the contestants checked out after it finished - if they had simply had a medical expert check her afterwards when she felt ill, chances are she'd still be alive today.

[Dark Fact]

In that case, what good are waivers at all if people are just gonna sue anyway?

[Necromancer]

The station's indifference to her welfare is where the problem lies.  She was visably ill (potentially mortally ill) and they let her leave.  Had the radio station taken this woman to the hospital, the waiver would've prevented her from collecting for medical expenses.  It would've also protected them from any claims for soiled clothing, participants 'discomfort', etcetera.  The sad thing is that Gatorade would've solved the problem - full bladders and no electrolyte imbalance.

[kungfukid]

In that case, what good are waivers at all if people are just gonna sue anyway?

Truth is, companies have to be very careful with waivers. For example, if it was a cake eating contest and somebody choked to death BUT there had been medical assistance available - however they couldn't help and the person died anyway - THEN the chances are the waiver would be ok because the station would've taken all the precautions necessary. The problem here is that the station DIDN'T take all the precaustions that a proper risk analysis would've highlighted, and so are negligent. It's a fine line.

A lot of the time waivers are not legally enforceable though, a lot of companies just use them to try and escape their obligations and limit their liability even though they wouldn't stand up in court. The most common one is in cloakrooms at nightclubs and restaurants etc. where they say that jackets left are at the owners risk and so they don't take any responsibility. If the cloakroom has staff manning it it doesn't matter what they say - it IS their responsibility and you CAN reclaim any loss. It's only if there is no staff that they can play that card.

There are loads of other examples - thing to remember is that in most cases, a waiver does not affect your statutory rights, it's basically a 'gentlemans agreement' if you will.

[Dark Fact]

A lot of the time waivers are not legally enforceable though, a lot of companies just use them to try and escape their obligations and limit their liability even though they wouldn't stand up in court. The most common one is in cloakrooms at nightclubs and restaurants etc. where they say that jackets left are at the owners risk and so they don't take any responsibility. If the cloakroom has staff manning it it doesn't matter what they say - it IS their responsibility and you CAN reclaim any loss. It's only if there is no staff that they can play that card.

I know that in many places, there is a rule that states that the staff "is not responsible for lost or stolen items".  However, if there is a crooked staff member in the midst that does happen to deliberately lose or steal your items, does the same rule apply?

[kungfukid]

Ahh, we're getting too deep into this now and gonna make my head hurt! lol!  Depends on the circumstances... and depends on whether you're talking about 'accidental' damage, negligence, theft or fraudulant misrepresentation.... Ok, if for example you were taking an action against the establishment and proceedings were underway, then at some point you discoverred about this untrustworthy persons actions, that would be classed as a 'novus actus interveniens' (or in English as opposed to Latin - a new thing intervenes), and so the nature of the case would have been altered. The active proceedings would end pending a case being built regarding the new circumstance... PHEW!!! But usually all of this would have been discovered at any discovery hearing (unlikely EVER to happen in reality because who is gonnna start a court action over a jacket unless it's a damn expensive jacket!!!! Although that is the theory!). There are far too many ifs, buts and maybes in a lot of these types of cases...

[Dark Fact]

What I mean is if the employee was crooked enough to try and take advantage of that rule and deliberately steal your personal belongings for his own gain?

And cases like this could happen if you're a famous celebrity or politician.