Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Death from drinking too much water

This has been discussed on this board several times (just search for hyponatremia), but a woman's death in Sacramento today brought it to the forefront again. Although people probably could not drink too much water hiking the Whitney trail, it has been seen in marathons, and now this.

The first big case was at a fraternity hazing incident at Chico State a few years ago. The men's fraternity even heard about the thing at an orientation by authorities telling them what was NOT a good idea: getting someone to drink too much water. They killed a guy, and they were sent to jail.

Now, a Sacramento radio station is in really hot water. Early into the contest, a nurse called in to warn them that drinking too much water could kill someone. The DJ said on the air that it was ok and that didn't matter, since the contestants had each signed a waiver.

After drinking about 2 gallons of water, the woman went off to work, but then left for home, sick with a splitting headache. She was found dead 5 hours later by her mother. She leaves three children.

If I were on a jury, I would award the family a big amount.

I heard yesterday afternoon that the morning show was pulled off the air.

The station manager's comment that he was shocked sure didn't cut it. How stupid (not talking about the contestants) can some people be?

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"
--H. L. Mencken

Just as in climbing Whitney, one needs to listen to their body. I would think that the woman would have been feeling pretty lousy way before the second gallon was chugged. Of course the radio show has some liability, but you can't protect everyone from their own poor judgment!

"A man's got to know his limitations."
--Harry Callahan

(and that doesn't mean just the unfortunate woman who died.)

The water contest that the radio station held was similar to a hypothetical contest where people would ride a motorcycle through a curtain, not knowing that there was a cliff to fall down on the other side. There's an implied trust that the radio station will not do anything to harm you.

So what if someone proposed a contest with a prize to the person who summited Whitney completely naked this weekend - should we go after the person in court when all the idiots who take them up on the offer wind up dead? It's called personal resposibility - something sadly absent anymore in American society

disclaimer: If you disagree - take the original poster to court because it's not my fault for posting...

In this case, according to the papers, the guys from the station who ran the contest got at least one call warning of the potentially fatal consequences. While I agree that the people drinking the water were responsible for themselves, the radio station folks also had some responsibility. At the very least, they needed to tell the contestants that they were taking a serious risk. If, as alleged in the papers, they shrugged off their responsibility (with statements like "they signed waivers"), then I would not be at all upset that they may be spending some time in civil and criminal court.

Thank you Andrew. I agree. The DJs were very ignorant about the whole thing, but that doesn't excuse the contestants from knowing what they were getting into.

Google "water overdose" - first link is a Webmd article about the risks of drinking excessive water. The article was written in Oct 2000.

Not sure that I agree about the criminal court thing. I don't see any criminal intent. A few warnings by some over the phone nurses hold little wait - as much as my voice does say here on a message board. As far as civil responsibility - I will have to look back to the old question that I am sure we were all asked at one point or another by our mothers - "If they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?"

Drinking water is not jumping off of a bridge. Yes, one should know that too much could be bad, but many people obviously don't. That does not mean that someone else with no knowledge has responsibility for the drinker, but comparing it to jumping off of a bridge makes little sense to me.

I agree that a radio host would not be wise if he took every caller at face value. On the other hand, if I have a contest going on and a caller identifies herself as a nurse and warns of serious consequences, I should do some ckecking rather quickly.

A criminal act does not require criminal intent. Manslaughter is a good example. (From Wikipedia: "Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.") That crime has been on the books for a long time, so it's not a consequence of "the death of individual responsibility."

I do not know if criminal charges are warranted here. I am not an attorney and I lack many important facts. But I will not mourn if charges do come in this case.

I am sorry - the jumping off the bridge thing was something that my mother used to ask me when I was young to make me question my actions with regard to what other folks were doing or suggesting I do - what it means to me is that we should think for ourselves. Personal responsibility. I am just getting a bit tired of all the money being thrown around to "victims families" for things they do - so do you believe that the families of the Mt. Hood tradgedies should be able to get some compensation from the forest service because they allow winter ascents of the mountain? If not why? I'm just interested to know where we should draw the line?

Andrew -- My mother used cliffs, not bridges, but it sounds like the same playbook. :-)

I am not claiming that I know where to draw the line.

However, there is a big difference between the Mt. Hood situation and the water drinking contest. The USFS does not goad contestants into climbing Mt. Hood in the winter. They allow people to make their own choices and assume their own risks.

Now, if the the folks at the USFS get a call from NOAA saying that there is a huge, unpredicted storm moving in rapidly and they choose not to relate that information to climbers they encounter on the grounds that it's the climbers' responsibility, there may be a problem. The climbers' responsibility is not removed, but the USFS people would have a responsibility too.

Regarding the radio station, I will not mourn if they are sued/prosecuted and I will not mourn if they are. I might change my mind if I knew more of the details.

Alright. Have a good one.

Same to you.

I'll refrain from jumping off of cliffs and bridges and won't sue you if I change my mind. :-)

I think there a big difference here between Forest Service liability and the radio station.

1. The radio station was offering a prize highly desired by some people.

2. The contest they designed had a potentially deadly outcome, which they were warned of.

3. The risk of dying by drinking too much water is not well known, and is not obvious (like standing on top of a cliff is).

As for winter ascents, there is no prize offered; in fact USFS prohibits contests (so the Badwater to Whitney now ends at Whitney Portal). Although winter ascents can be dangerous, the deaths result from a series of unfortunate events. And those who choose to make a winter ascent know they are heading into extremely harsh conditions.

If you look at the definition of criminal negligence ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence" target=_new>Wikipedia: Criminal negligence</a> ), this water-drinking contest was a good fit.

Here is a short news report on the incident. At the bottom, you can click on a link to view a video clip including radio station DJ's comments about the danger:
<a href="http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=5641" target=_new>Water Death Controversy</a>

Just for point of reference, too, guys: Andrew, I'm not nit-picking on the comment, but any medical professional's words should carry weight. I believe Kaiser has a system in place for the patient to call in, speak with a nurse (I believe) to describe the problem, and then the patient is guided to the appropriate medical professional to deal with the problem. It is as close as we (including myself) physical therapists get to direct access in California (where the patient can just come directly to me, without having to go to the MD).

I agree that the woman had some responsibility, and there may not have been any criminal intent by the radio station. The whole issue is just insanely dumb, and a testament to just how far people might go for "ratings". Pretty disgusting all the way around. :-(

-Laura

Here's some excerpts from a news story about it http://www.modbee.com/local/story/13204124p-13844112c.html

"The five on-air personalities on the 'Morning Rave' radio show and five other employees of The End (KDND, 107.9 FM) were fired Tuesday amid public outrage after a woman died after her participation in a station contest."

"Criminal law professors were divided as to whether the death calls for criminal charges against the radio station staff. John Myers, a McGeorge School of Law professor, said Strange's death seems to be a case of criminal negligence. 'It's clear she would not have died if not for the contest, the encouragement in it and the prize dangled before her face,' he said. Further, he said, the case could merit a charge of criminal recklessness if the station employees were aware of the risk they were creating. An audio recording of the show indicates at least one disc jockey knew there was some danger."

Here's the audio recording http://www.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/kdndslides/

It sounds like the on-air radio staff thought that the worse that would happen is that people would vomit if they ingested too much water. One thing that makes it so sad is that everyone seemed good natured about it at the time and didn't realize that it was a life threatening situation.

edit (after Alan's message): Sometimes a situation like that might occur in the mountains, in the sense that the extent of the danger is not apparent because others are doing it. Like the woman who was killed on the downed cables at Half Dome [Ref] . Another example of the mentality that something is safe because others are doing it, is in the thread, Hikers Walking Into Lightning Storm. SomeoneTell Me Why!

Bob, I agree with you, especially that last sentence. But, having listened to the audio clip Steve referred to, I think non-expert opinion!) the radio guys are hosed (pun intended).

This, a portion of the Los Angeles Times article this morning:

"The Chico case involved a student acting under peer pressure, but Strange was a grown woman who agreed to take part and resisted several attempts by the radio hosts to persuade her to quit, the sheriff said."

Well say good bye to the classic American hot dog or pie eating contests then...too great a liability. Maybe I can pay my childs way through college by entering one and choking...

Don't get me wrong here, I am not disagreeing that the radio guys were idiots for initiating such a thing but again, where do we draw the line?