Station not totally at fault

Re "Family in Wii case wins $16.5 million" (Page A1, Oct. 30): My condolences to the Strange family for their loss.

I agree the radio station should bear financial responsibility for the loss created by the course of events it set in motion. However, charging the radio station with 100 percent responsibility is not a just result. Jennifer Strange, a competent adult, voluntarily participated in the contest and therefore should be held responsible for a portion of the loss she created.

– Walter Graviet, Sacramento

Consumers pay for big verdicts

Re "Family in Wii case wins $16.5 million" (Page A1, Oct. 30): $1,477,118 for economic damages to Billy Strange I can understand. Something for pain and suffering is appropriate, but the absurdly excessive $15.1 million award on top of that for comfort, care, etc., precisely illustrates the major ill in our society: lack of personal responsibility.

Nobody twisted Jennifer Strange's arm or forced her to participate in a silly contest. She was an adult who made poor choices. The misguided actions of this jury have made the plaintiffs inordinately wealthy and seriously fattened the wallets of a few lawyers.

It is likely we will all pay for this jury's largess with higher product prices due to higher business liability insurance costs being passed through to us, the consumers.

– Ed Georges, Sacramento

Entercom's 'perplexing' defense

Re "Family in Wii case wins $16.5 million" (Page A1, Oct. 30): We are not privy to the behind-the-scenes strategies of defendant Entercom, nor its settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. Yet what seems even more misguided than the defendant's absurd water- drinking contest is that it would take this kind of egregious liability and damage case to such a public trial.

Entercom's approach becomes even more perplexing when facing off against arguably the top plaintiff's personal injury trial attorney.

Now Entercom has to add even more to the "bill" in terms of horrible public relations. The jury obviously did not like Entercom's blame-the-dead-mother theme. Its reported trial approach was as goofy as the underlying water- drinking contest.

– Steven Fishbein, Sacramento

A downtown arena's 'downside'

Re "Scoring arena to be goal of panel" (Our Region, Oct. 30): Has anyone at The Bee considered looking at the downside of a downtown arena? Shoehorning several square blocks of mostly dead space right in between the train station and the railyards development would effectively isolate the new neighborhood, making it more a part of the Richards Boulevard corridor than the already dead-after-dark downtown it's supposed to help revitalize.

There are also serious traffic and parking issues to consider. Spending a great deal of money to build a new, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood and then filling the streets with thousands of cars full of people who have had a few beers and watched the Kings lose three to four nights a week just seems perverse.

– Corey Yeoman, Sacramento

'Nestlé is not a water user'

Re "Nestlé work on plant can resume" (Our Region, Oct. 28): The American West has enjoyed an unusually wet century. Even without global warming, we are heading back into a more normal, drier climate.

We as residents are already required to restrict our water use, yet Nestlé has no restrictions. As global warming reduces our water, we will stop watering yards. Will Nestlé have restrictions?

Nestlé is not a water user! It will buy public water cheap and sell it back to us at 60 to 130 times the price. Nestlé says they will bottle 70 million gallons of water a year. What kind of guarantees are there that it won't bottle more?

When global warming cuts our water supply and lawns dry up, what kind of guarantees are there that Nestlé will cut back on bottling? The answer, of course, is none. Nestlé should be excited about the prospect of bottling cheap public water and selling it back to the public at inflated prices.