Erin Andrews

That plus the jury’s decision indicates the severity with which they felt the business’ breached its responsibility and due care under its own contracts/rules and relevant laws.

One reason for asking for large rewards and juries awarding them is to not only send a strong message to the defendants found to have been severely wrongful or negligent, but also to avoid situations like what happened with the Ford Pinto. Ford was found to have known about the dangerously defective fuel tank but their own bean counters calculated the cost of redesigning the fuel tank to eliminate the defect would be higher than paying to settle possible future claims arising from the defect in arbitration/court and regard those settlements as nominally “a cost of doing business”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

I have been trying to figure out how the jury reached the number of $55 million. Maybe it’s coincidence but…

Take $55 million. Multiply by .49 for 49% liability for the corporate defendants. You get $26,955,00. Take two thirds of that. (Did the jury figure the lawyers would take one third?) You get $17,966,666. That number is remarkably close to the $1 per view recommended by the plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument.

Obviously, there are lots of reasons that the jurors shouldn’t have calculated things that way. Still, it’s my best guess at how the jury chose that number. I also suspect it factored into its decision the fact it was unlikely she would collect anything from the perp.

Anyone got any better guesses?

@cttc:
No, she didn’t, but a jury very well might have decided to give her a retirement gift, it does happen, people see someone who is horribly disfigured, who something bad has happened, and the jury wants to make it right.

It all depends on the jury, the one I was on in this case was a pretty well educated bunch, we had researchers and such from the pharm industry, people who understood things like physics (for example, the car that was run into had something like 200 bucks in damage…which right there indicates a low speed collision (not to mention the circumstances, going from a dead stop at a red light in a buick regal…). In all fairness to juries, the law doesn’t help much. We were told that both sides had agreed to one of the injuries, so we had to try and come up with a number (there was no asked for settlement) basically out of thin air, in these cases apparently they leave it up to the jury. We did it based on the complaints of the plaintiff, that she couldn’t for example clean the house easily, and tried to come up with a number representing a number of years of hiring someone to help. …so if juries do create magic numbers, well, it may be no one gives them guidelines either.

On the other hand, I was on another civil case years ago in NYC, where someone was suing a car company, arguing that their injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the car company, they weren’t wearing their seatbelt not were their passengers, got into an accident and got pretty banged up. They argued, despite the fact that NY state had seatbelt laws, despite the fact there was a warning light telling them it wasn’t on, and that they were going fast, that the car manufacturer should have done a better job making that car protect the passengers, despite the fact it met all applicable safety regulations. The plaintiff’s lawyer had experts who claimed the passengers even without seatbelts could have been better protected, they had (paid) experts saying that car’s chasis design wasn’t good enough compared to what other cars had (they used volvo and mercedes, which was ridiculous, the car in question was like a 1980’s Olds Cutlass Supreme or some such). The defense lawyer was good, pointed out the seat belts, pointed out that the car met safety standards, pointed out the speed the car was going for the street it was on, pointed out that Mercedes and Volvo were luxury cars well above the level of the Cutlass, also were heavier cars, and basically made a good case. We went to deliberate, and i can tell you that many people on that jury wanted to stick it to GM and the dealer that sold them the car, they saw the injuries (and they were bad), and wanted to help ‘the poor family’. I likely may have been the lone holdout…it ended up getting settled, I suspect because the defense attorney realized that they weren’t going to win.

I also made friends with a woman my wife and I used to commute to the city with, her husband was a lawyer in NY Supreme court and handled a lot of lawsuits, especially suits against NYC, and she said that that kind of thing happened routinely, that the juries would compensate based on feeling bad for the plaintiff. It is also true that judges routinely would cut the awards significantly, but juries are and can be swayed by emotion. Put it this way, if juries were not so swayed by emotion, lawyers would not spend so much time on jury selection, vetting jurors, they do so by profiles based on who they think certain people from certain backgrounds will act as jurors. As a young, educated person, I was often thrown off panels because I was considered by the prosecutor to be too liberal, as an old fart I tend to get thrown off by the defense, assuming I must be someone assuming someone was guilty until proven innocent…:slight_smile:

I think the hotel was liable for what happened. I believe somebody intimidated the waitress into shutting up. Could have been the law firms, could have been the restaurant, could have been anybody. I think the hotel and especially the law firm came across as totally unfeeling and heartless. I think they deserved that judgment. If they appeal I hope they end up having to pay more.

It may not have been Marriott International at fault but it’s their name that will be forever associated with this case and will make people stop and think before staying there. Good. If this cases is appealed and they win it will only make them look worse. When will they learn?

@MomofWildChild said

Well, according to a couple of articles in Spots Illustrated, MOWC is wrong and @carolinamom2boys is right.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/03/07/erin-andrews-wins-55-million-hotel-lawsuit?xid=nl_siextra

and here is the link to the previous article they mention. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/03/01/erin-andrews-stalker-lawsuit-marriott-espn

Just to be clear, I know some think the phrase “blame the victim” means asserting the victim was at least partially responsible for the overt act. In this case it might be saying something as absurd as “Why were you naked in your hotel room outside of the shower?” or, no less ridiculous but maybe not quite as idiotic sounding “Didn’t you lead this man on by talking to him in an elevator once?”.

But I think that is too narrow an interpretation. It seems to me to be very much blaming the victim by saying or strongly insinuating that they must not have been as emotionally scarred as they are claiming since they were able to not only return to work, but to have increasing success. In fact, that proves nothing at all, just like talking about what a woman was wearing proves nothing about her wanting sex. The latter is well known as victim blaming, and so should the former be equally considered so.

I don’t think that it will make much difference in whether people stay at a Marriott’s or not. We stayed at a different one in Nashville in January and Marriott is one of the hotel brands DH stays in for business. People don’t dump the whole brand for something that happened in 1 hotel. If that was going to happen it would have happened back in 2008.

^ I will. I don’t like giving my business to companies that I don’t like how they operate or policies I don’t agree with (like Hobby Lobby for instance.) Plenty of other hotels to stay at.

I didn’t know about this situation until a week or so ago. Now I do know. I imagine there are a lot of people like me who knew nothing about this until recently.

I don’t think most hotels are very different RE security. There are always going to be better trained and less trained staff and there will always be bad folks.

I’d be curious to see if any major hotel chains institute new policies or gave better/more training, blockers on peepholes, restricted elevator floors or any other new precautions.

Maybe folks will start putting tape over their hotel peepholes, but as others have said, you could put a camera elsewhere as well. Cameras are getting SO small these days!

The security may be the same at other hotel chains but their arrogance towards a customer who was so terribly treated better not be the same. I will not stay at a Marriott unless it’s my last choice and I can’t see that happening. I will also not shop at a Hobby Lobby or eat at that chicken restaurant whose name I refuse to remember. Or any other business that discriminates against any customer or treats one so poorly.

I have never been a great fan of big hotel chains and will likely continue to prefer smaller boutique hotels. It is upsetting. I try to avoid stores and chains who have practices I find objectionable.

Fortunately, we gave no Hobby Lobby stores in HI.

Here’s an interview with one of the jurors:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jurors-explain-55-million-award-erin-andrews-nude-video-case-n534221

I think that perhaps the sheer size of this award will bring attention to hotel security in general. I would think most chains would at least undertake a review of their systems to make sure room numbers remain private, and perhaps review privacy policies with employees. Bet there insurance companies will require them to do so.

So some good can come of this. Increased security benefits everyone. I really dislike traveling on my own and have to do it more often that I would like.

Once H fell asleep in our room and I was locked out. Had a small party full of girls in the adjacent room and I had run over there for some reason without my room key. We banged on the door and called constantly but he slept through it. I went to the front desk for a new key and they only gave me one because I happened to have my ID on me in my purse! They said they’ve had domestic incidents where a spouse will demand entry, suspecting an affair, and they want to avoid violence. Since I had reserved the room in my name, I was able to get back in (and H slept on).

Hulk Hogan got more!!! http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-deliberations/index.html

Whoa. I don’t have a lot of respect for someone sleeping with his best friend’s wife, in the wife’s house no less, but I also have a distain for tabloid journalism. Ohh… Conflict…

Gawker kept trying to frame it as a first amendment issue! And, the friend had an “open marriage” so they said HH should have known that the husband would be filming. What a world…