California Lottery cancels 'Make Me a Millionaire'

[chris319]

The lottery gets a lot of publicity when the jackpot gets high, and I imagine there are lots of habitual lottery players who buy tickets every week. Has there ever been established a connection between ticket sales and the existence or non-existence of a TV show? And how does the show get placed on the air?

[WarioBarker]

The way it sounded before reading the articles, the woman's jumping shook the wheel and dislodged the ball (that it was her fault, and hers alone, that she lost $2,990,000).

Mrs. Barnett's lawyers showed jurors video tapes of other Big Spin contestants who were awarded prizes even though the ball didn't stay put for five seconds or more.

This struck me the most out of that article (I never did pay attention to the Weekly World News -- come on, "Alien Impregnates Crossdressing Hobo"?), as it shows a lot of problems in the show's early days -- not only did a contestant successfully get $3.4 Million from the California Lottery, it was proved in court that the early days didn't always enforce the five-second rule. (There was also a "three revolutions" rule, enforced by lights below the wheel.)

With this, I'm now kind of surprised the show managed to run another 23 years -- getting into court and having to pay an additional $400,000 due to a hosting error on your brand-new game show (the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000) is not the best method of Public Relations.

Now that I know the story (and that it had a happy ending of sorts), I'd love to see that spin. Reminds me of that Pat Finn-era lady who also thought she became a millionaire and got excited, only to have the ball dislodge...and land in another $1,000,000 space.

/hopes "Alien Impregnates Crossdressing Hobo" wasn't used by the Weekly World News

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240429\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:30 PM\']The way it sounded before reading the articles, the woman's jumping shook the wheel and dislodged the ball (that it was her fault, and hers alone, that she lost $2,990,000).[/quote]
I saw it when it happened. That's exactly what happened, and I am sure the contestants were made aware of (and signed a document agreeing to) the rules in advance. Personal responsibility FTL.

Unsurprisingly, WWN got it wrong:
[quote name=\'Weekly World News\']Mrs. Barnett's lawyers showed jurors video tapes of other Big Spin contestants who were awarded prizes even though the ball didn't stay put for five seconds or more.[/quote]
This is not the case. The five-second rule was ALWAYS enforced. It was just that the prosecution's case was that the host would jump the gun and tell the person they won Whatever before the five seconds expired and the amount was official. Just so happened this was the first time that this situation came up. (Mainly because the wheel under the short Woolery regime had actual slots for the ball to rest in and so this wasn't really an issue. When Edwards took over, they switched to a new wheel where the "slots" were basically the spaces between pegs.

(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)

This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.

Now that I know the story

Well, the Weekly World News version of it, anyhow.

/makes a man miss Paul Harvey

[WarioBarker]

(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)

This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.

Based on the info in this topic, here's a timeline of what happened (please correct if needed) with everything but the last one happening in the span of at most three minutes:

-Doris Barnett spins the wheel
-Wheel makes the required three revolutions for the spin to "count"
-Wheel slows down
-Ball lands in $3,000,000 space
-Geoff Edwards immediately declares Doris the winner of $3,000,000
-Doris jumps around in excitement
-Excited jumping shakes the wheel
-Ball falls out of $3,000,000 space before the five required seconds elapse
-Ball bounces around bottom portion of wheel (as seen in the picture, nobody is yet aware of this)
-Ball lands in a $10,000 space (as family comes up?)
-Geoff looks at the wheel, realizes what happened, calms everybody down, and states that the ball fell out of the $3,000,000 and landed in the $10,000 (and, by implication, sat in the $10,000 for the required five seconds)
-(Unknown, possibly a bad reaction from Doris and/or a throw to commercial?)
-Doris sues the Lottery and wins

...So based on the info provided, it definitely looks like Geoff jumped the gun, which caused the excited jumping, which caused the wheel to shake, which caused the ball to dislodge from the $3,000,000 to the $10,000. However, as you said, whether Geoff's really at fault here depends on whether the Lottery actually told him about the five-second rule.

If they explained the rule, Geoff jumped the gun and the situation was entirely his fault. If they didn't, though, Geoff wasn't liable and the situation was entirely the Lottery's fault.

[chris319]

It was just that the prosecution's case was that the host would jump the gun and tell the person they won Whatever before the five seconds expired and the amount was official.

Plaintiff's case.

The underlying question in those instances is whether the ball jumped out of the slot before the five seconds had elapsed and if so, which amount was awarded? According to the rules (which were disregarded in this case) it should be the amount the ball sits in for five seconds.

I'm astonished at both of you. You should both know by now that the emcee is not ultimately responsible for awarding prizes, the producer is, and the emcee can and should be overruled by the producer if he is wrong (c.f. Sonny Fox). Suppose on, say, The $64,000 Challenge the question is "Who was the first president of the United States?". The contestant says "John Adams" and the emcee calls it correct. You think a competent producer is going to let this go? No, he's going to stop and correct the emcee and no money will be awarded because the question was answered incorrectly regardless of how the emcee called it.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240437\' date=\'May 5 2010, 11:08 PM\']The underlying question in those instances is whether the ball jumped out of the slot before the five seconds had elapsed and if so, which amount was awarded?[/quote]
And the answer is "no". The plaintiff's case was that the host (and by extension, the production, see below) was negligent in telling the contestant what they had won before it was official that they had won it. This was the first time that a ball ran based on the actions of a contestant.

According to the rules (which were disregarded in this case)

I hope by "case" you mean "the lawsuit." Because the production most definitely applied the rules.

I actually was telling my girlfriend (who has a law degree) about this tonight, and she suggested that the document the contestants sign that explain what the game rules are, et. al., might not be enforceable as proof that the contestant was made aware of the five-second rule.

I'm astonished at both of you. You should both know by now that the emcee is not ultimately responsible for awarding prizes, the producer is

I can tell you at the minimum that your astoinishment at me is unfounded, as I assure you I am well aware of this, and was merely speaking to Dan88's suggestion (via Weekly World News, and it saddens me that I am surprised *not at all* at his trying to quote WWN as a legitimate source) that the "whole thing was Geoff's fault."

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240435\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:37 PM\']* If the Lottery did explain the rule, Geoff jumped the gun and the situation is entirely his fault.
* If the Lottery did not explain the rule, Geoff is not liable and the situation is entirely the Lottery's fault.[/quote]
Either way, legally, the onus is on the Lottery, since Geoff was an employee of the production. All I'm trying to do is point out the possibility (which you seem to be backpedaling into now) that Geoff wasn't knowingly negligent.

I know Geoff is still alive -- might be a good idea to ask him, although (for good reason) he might not want to remember this.

Or, alternately, we could let Geoff enjoy his retirement in peace.

[tvrandywest]

I worked the CA. lottery show for years, although not during the Geoff Edwards era. The lottery has their own equivalent of an S&P department that determines and polices the rules.

They review the rules with the contestants who then sign that they agree to abide by those rules and the lottery's rulings. The S&P "draw inspectors" are on set before the taping to run the games repeatedly to rule out any anomoly or irregularity, such as weighting or other attempt by anyone to affect an outcome. They are then on set monitoring all aspects of play, and make all determinations.

Nothing a host says supercedes those rulings.

Randy
tvrandywest

[chris319]

I hope by "case" you mean "the lawsuit."

Which case do you THINK I mean, Chris? It is obvious that the production company tried to apply the rules but the jury disregarded them.

the document the contestants sign that explain what the game rules are, et. al., might not be enforceable as proof that the contestant was made aware of the five-second rule.

Now why on Earth wouldn't it be? You sign an agreement, you're bound by it. Simple contract law. If it's not enforceable then it would wreak havoc with all game/reality show production.

The lottery has their own equivalent of an S&P department that determines and polices the rules. They review the rules with the contestants who then sign that they agree to abide by those rules and the lottery's rulings. The S&P "draw inspectors" are on set before the taping to run the games repeatedly to rule out any anomoly or irregularity, such as weighting or other attempt by anyone to affect an outcome. They are then on set monitoring all aspects of play, and make all determinations.

I don't know if those procedures were in place at the time of this incident, and it's a moot point now, but they may as well have thrown all of that out the window and burned the rule book if the rules don't even stand up in court. That it even got to the lawsuit stage is remarkable because the contestant release should have had language against it, along with the clause "I agree that all decisions of the lottery commission are final". Instead, $3.4 million plus court costs that should have gone to educate California's children go to a greedy sore loser. May she choke on the money.

/Clementson, are you finished being a drama queen?
//Hell no!

[parliboy]

Great "tug on the heartstrings" action there.  (She took money from the kids!)  But ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.

Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball.  It was the actual cause.  But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made.  Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable.  Proximate cause.  If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.

Let's extend to something a bit more current.  You're playing The Cube in 2012, and NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds.  He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task.  Is it fair?  After all, the decisions of the producers are final.

And before you claim "apples to oranges", understand that the question I'm asking is in relation to proximate cause.  Would the embittered lottery contestant have won if not for Geoff's declaration?  Would you have won if not for NPH's declaration?  Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240443\' date=\'May 6 2010, 02:31 AM\']Which case do you THINK I mean, Chris? It is obvious that the production company tried to apply the rules but the jury disregarded them.[/quote]
Just making sure, and I only asked because my gut interpreted that the other way at first.

Now why on Earth wouldn't it be? You sign an agreement, you're bound by it. Simple contract law. If it's not enforceable then it would wreak havoc with all game/reality show production.

Again, I'm on your side here. But our legal system being what it is, apparently there is something called a "contract of adhesion." The idea being that if a contract is found to be one, the court will usually throw out any provisions that a person wouldn't expect to find therein. The same thing is discussed with software EULAs. She was suggesting the plaintiff might have argued that the contestant release constituted a contract of adhesion.

Instead, $3.4 million plus court costs that should have gone to educate California's children go to a greedy sore loser. May she choke on the money.

I only disagree here to the point that the prize pool and the education contribution were and are two separate piles of money, and that paying out didn't affect that 30% or whatever it was that went to schools. I absolutely agree that she should not have won.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'240450\' date=\'May 6 2010, 07:07 AM\']Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.[/quote]
If she didn't sign away those rights when she signed the release, yes, that would be true. (Again, though, potential for adhesion contract. Although honestly I just don't see where any provision in there would be considered unreasonable.)

Seems to me that it boiled down roughly like this:

Plaintiff: Geoff made me do it waaaaah blah blah.

Defendant: She signed a contract.

Plaintiff: Adhesion contract blah blah.

Defendant: She signed a freakin' contract.

Plaintiff: Yammer yammer proximate cause.

Defendant: Um, what part of "contract" is nobody understanding here?

And the jury, who probably had it drilled into their heads that contracts are designed to screw consumers, bought it hook, line, and sinker.

So really my hope is that those jurors have had a host of problems with their cellphones and cable and such over the years, and that they've had a hard time getting their carriers to honor the service contracts.

NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds. He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task. Is it fair? After all, the decisions of the producers are final.

Does it suck? Yeah. Morally, should the production admit fault and award the contestant the win? Almost certainly. Would there be the likelihood of a settlement due to the bad PR the case would generate? Sure. Are they LEGALLY culpable? I really don't think so. But that's just me, IANAL, etc. The law very often does not work the way it SHOULD work, and we often have our jury system to thank for that.

[WarioBarker]

But ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.

Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball. It was the actual cause. But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made. Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable. Proximate cause. If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.

(emphasis added by me) A good point. Cause-and-Effect in action.

Let's extend to something a bit more current. You're playing The Cube in 2012, and NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds. He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task. Is it fair? After all, the decisions of the producers are final.

I think this depends -- for example, did NPH slightly lose track of time and think that 10 seconds had passed when it was really 8? The decisions of the producers are final, yes, unless they blatantly go against S&P (Our Little Genius certainly seemed to be {heading in?} that way) or the contestant legit has a case ("I played Hole In One, and somebody yelled "MISS IT!" right as I made the swing to putt!").

Granted, yes, the Hole In One case probably isn't that strong, but the host does say for the studio to be quiet given what's required to win and what's on the line.

And before you claim "apples to oranges", understand that the question I'm asking is in relation to proximate cause. Would the embittered lottery contestant have won if not for Geoff's declaration? Would you have won if not for NPH's declaration? Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.

I think it's a fair legal question. I also think an important factor is just how long the ball stayed in the $3,000,000 before Geoff declared Doris a winner -- if he declared her a winner after 4.5 seconds, for example, then there's a strong chance she might have won.

As the seconds climb, the chances of winning approach 1.

[parliboy]

As an aside, I started googling for lottery game show rules, and found the rules for Oklahoma.  Buried in the middle of a 50-page document is a one-sentence paragraph:

If at any time during game play the Host or Hostess misstates a fact, it shall be deemed NOT to have disadvantaged a contestant.

So it at least appears that people have learned from mistakes.

[chris319]

ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.

Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball. It was the actual cause. But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made. Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable. Proximate cause. If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.

All very interesting, but regardless of actual vs. proximate cause there was a written rule stating that the ball must rest in the slot for five seconds. If you want to nitpick this to death we would have to view the videotape and see if the wheel was still in motion or had come to a halt when the ball jumped. If the wheel was still in motion you would have to prove to me that the jumping, and not the motion of the wheel, caused the ball to jump. If the wheel had come to a halt you're going to have an easier time convincing me it was the contestant's jumping. Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?

There are two issues here: One is whether the sore loser should have been awarded the money on the California lottery show, and the other is whether there is any point to game/reality shows making contestants agree to written rules if a sore loser can go to court and have those rules overturned. That is a HUGE deal for producers of game/reality shows.

Now, I can turn my entire argument around by saying that the producers set a trap for themselves by not drilling into Jeff's head that under no circumstances should he make noises about winning until the five seconds have firmly elapsed. In that case I find the producers guilty of stupidity but I still find Geoff Edwards to be one of the finest emcees ever.

/Judge Clementson has ruled.
//(SFX: WHACK)