Hey, MANEY

[dittohead1]

Been paying attention:

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2233488.html

I mean YOU caused this.  For those who don't know Q1075's (Steve) Maney was the mastermind of the "Hold Your Wee for Wii" contest that killed Ms. Strange.  But, you know, we wouldn't want Steve to suffer in exile, so he's got this here gig right cheer.  Ain't America the best?

How's that wrongful dismissal suit going, Steve.  I ain't heard much about it.  Made any headway?

[Meepster]

Don't know anything about this story, really, except what I read. Don't know the jock (Maney) you're talking about nor do I know where he works around here. But, my question is-while the woman's death is a terrible thing that obviously wouldn't have happened if there were no contest-did the jock or the station, or it's management hold a gun to contestants' heads and FORCE them to drink water? If people participated in the contest of their own free will, how can anyone bit themselves be held accountable for whatever results happen?

If a Nascar Driver is killed in a crash, can his people sue Nascar? The automaker? The heirs of the man that invented the horseless carriage?

Not trying to be a smartass so much as asking a real question. Have we heard the "legal" minds of the Memphis boards (you know who you are) thoughts? I'm really curious.

[radiosaur]

Dittohead seems to have a jones for Maney. As the legal minds you spoke of discussed in a previous thread, Maney was dismissed from the case months ago.

Given this warped society of ours’ current views on personal responsibility, Entercom will most likely lose the case, but the individuals involved will not be liable.


I would guess some of those arguments centered on if Entercom knew or should have known that the contest was inherently dangerous. Personally, if a station offered a million bucks for the winner of a Russian Roulette game, I’d say anyone who played the game ignoring the fact it was obviously dangerous was assuming their own risk…but drinking water? How many folks know that can be dangerous?

It’s probably an interesting trial from a legal standpoint.

DE can probably expound on the legal arguments much better than I can. I just put them in jail. Lawyers get 'em out : )

[RadeoEngineer]

My guess here is that if you're going to invite the public to play a "game", you as the gamee have a responsibility to see to the safety of the gamers.  Water intoxication is a pretty well known danger, and the gamee exposed the gamers to this without proper consideration of their safety.  Obviously there was no intent to cause a death on the part of the gamers, but a death resulted nonetheless from the game.  To my knowledge, there was no warning to the gamers regarding water intoxication, so I see it that Entercom and the participant gamees were negligent.  Why those that actually pulled the stunt have been dropped from the suit I don't understand, but hopefully DE can shed a little light.

[Zeke_Terry]

Is this an alt of Goatboy?!?

[dittohead1]

I believe Maney has one of those "hold harmless" clauses that would preclude him from legal action, but I wonder why he wasn't asked to testify as a material witness.  He would seem to have information that would be vital.  His old PD, Steve Weed, testified via video.  And I believe that Maney's claim that he would sue for wronful termination is complete balderdash.  I wonder if Jennifer Strange's death ever crosses his mind.  I wonder if he ever thinks about how her kids miss their mother.

[RadeoEngineer]

Is this an alt of Goatboy?!?

If you're referring to me, no.

[DeadElvis]

Aside from the obvious tragedy, this is a very interesting case, legally.

I haven't been following the testimony, so I am shooting from the hip here.  But the issue is not necessarily whether Entercom (at a corporate or local level) knew or should have known, alone.  The employees who were responsible for the contest were the agents of the employer, thus their bad acts (assuming there are any) are imputed up the chain.

Russian Roulette is not a good analogy.  Everyone knows that shooting a gun at one's head is a very, very bad idea.  A reasonable man would never do that.  Drinking water is another matter.  And, here, I suspect testimony would show that the station had superior knowledge about the inherent dangers of this foolish stunt.  They had a conversation on tape about the Chico deaths, if my memory is correct.  A Plaintiff's attorney would argue that, possessing that knowledge, moving forward was legally reckless.  Still, that is a legal/factual conclusion best left to the Court and the jury.

Reading juries is tough -- heck, I sat on one recently (which surprised the heck out of me, yet was a fascinating experience).  But, if I were a betting man, I would bet on a healthy verdict for the Plaintiff.  Ms. Strange is a very sympathetic figure -- she was young, hard-working, and just trying to take care of her kids.  All that bodes ill at trial.  But, the Defense has not yet put on its case, so we do not yet have all the facts.

I don't know Mr. Maney, so it would be inappropriate for me to add much commentary.  Apparently, he was dropped as a Defendant somewhere along the line.  As far as any suit for wrongful dismissal, that would seem like a tough sell.

DE

[DeadElvis]

Oh, and as the "legal" mind ('not sure why that's in quotes), I should address this:

> If a Nascar Driver is killed in a crash, can his people sue Nascar?

Anybody can sue anybody.  For anything.  The question is whether one can recover. 

But, sure... there might be facts that would support a verdict against NASCAR.  Did they do anything negligent that proximately caused the crash?  Perhaps the track wasn't properly maintained.  Rules were not enforced, etc.  The same could be said for the car's manufacturer.  Was there a flaw in design that made the car unreasonably dangerous?  Obviously, going back too much further gets a bit ridiculous.  Proximate cause is the real issue.

OK, so much for first year Torts class.  I am having flashbacks to the Palsgraf case.

Now, if you want to talk about real, meaty legal issues, today's Supreme Court argument about free speech and dog fighting is great fodder for discussion.  But, it's a bit esoteric to discuss here.

DE

[RadeoEngineer]

Now, if you want to talk about real, meaty legal issues, today's Supreme Court argument about free speech and dog fighting is great fodder for discussion.  But, it's a bit esoteric to discuss here.

DE

I am appalled that this is at issue in a free speech argument.  I'm watching this case with great interest.