Any event organiser has the responsibility to make sure their event is reasonably safe. If the radio station was aware of the risk - which I doubt it was - not only did it have a duty to inform participants of the risk (thus abrogating some, but not all responsibility), but they should have intervened.

The radio station owed those participants a duty of care. They were negligent in that duty.

As for your pints scenario - companies in this country are prevented from running irresponsible drinks promotions, pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003. I have little doubt that if this water case occurred in the United Kingdom the HSE would prosecute the company that organised the event.

THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE UK, unless your geography is lacking in knowing where California is. In case you are not aware Dasani is ok to sell in the USA where their food laws are more heavily weighted in favour of the supplier (where Dasani is essentially tap water + extra additives exceeding UK legal levels such as fluoride levels). I used the alcohol example as it's where a small reward for incredible risk to your own body.

Again you are providing excuses for ignorance, there is a reason no criminal charges were filed. They wouldn't have been found guilty, in the UK it would be deemed as death by misadventure or a similar reason. Either way no criminal charges would be filed. The reason this went to court in the US is because of the USA's "duh, I hurt myself doing something I shouldn't, it's their fault for not telling me" aka the sue culture.

Either way I have seen similar promotions in the UK including an annual competition for entrants to spend a week in a car where they are only allowed out a short time each day to use a restroom and wash. You are using silly legislation to stop you from having to answer the real problem of stupid people being able to enter a contest. The law and regulation may be there, but if they didn't read the risks it doesn't make the people publishing the contest guilty.

You say they are clearly guilty, of what exactly? They provided a means and the materials to do it. So does that make Smith & Wesson and other handgun makers responsible for people that play Russian Roulette and lose? Maybe it's because they had a reason of encouragement to do what they did. If you are that easily influenced or encouraged you deserve what you get.

Or are you saying that those who can retain water should be sued instead? How about Rik Waller sues Usain Bolt because he hurt his ankle trying to beat him in a 100m sprint? You can misinterpret my points as much as you want, such as a supermarket providing the encouragement and place to do something (buy alcohol).

An event organiser filling out health and safety does have to take reasonable measures to prevent accidents. You doubt what you have no factual evidence to support. You have no knowledge if they were interviewed (or what a suitable interview involves as I doubt you know the correct level of psychology). This was not an accident in their control as they had no power over who was going to quit and when. Neither would have them telling contestants about the results make any difference. Unless you were there to put it bluntly you know jack sh*t about what did and did not happen and are basing your opinions on the opinions of those who do not have all the facts either, a fallacy of a view if ever I have seen one.

Darwin awards anyone?

viewtopic.php?p=66591#p66591

Mentioned twice