If they gave him the room number, then they are liable, they won’t have much of a case. I didn’t read the details, but if the guy told the idiot at the desk she was his wife, for example, and they didn’t validate that, it would be a breach of customer privacy. They are not supposed to give out that information, they can take a message for someone, they can route through a call if that is their policy, but they aren’t supposed to give that out as far as I know.
If someone was making fun of her body, they are a complete schmuck. First of all, for looking at the video at all, secondly because it is crass to do so, and thirdly, because Erin Andrews is a good looking person, and if they think she is funny looking no wonder they are looking at video on the net, it is likely they couldn’t get a date to save their soul lol.
I have heard that the stalker “manipulated the reservation system” but I haven’t heard details about how.
What I was wondering about is what law requires a hotel to NOT give out our room number? I hear that all the time, but am wondering if there is actually a legal restriction or just good policy? If you buy a house in your own name, it’s public record.
It is sad if there aren’t any laws, but that wouldn’t surprise me. Given that this is a civil suit, though, the law is irrelevant in terms of criminal law. However, there are a couple of points in a civil lawsuit that could be applied. First of all,if Marriot corporation had a privacy policy forbidding giving out guests names and/or room numbers, then an employee giving out Ms. Andrews information would put Marriot in breach of contract, policies like that if I remember my business law correctly are affirmations of fact and constitute a contract. Secondly, even if Marriot did not have a formal policy, if the action of their employee allowed Ms. Andrews to come to harm, where said action could reasonably be foreseen as potentially causing her harm, then they can be held liable (I am not a lawyer, some of the lawyers on here might want to comment on this, but I recall similar cases from my business law classes that involved both kinds of things).
I feel very sorry for her and she should have the right to feel safe in the privacy of her hotel room. The fact that the executive for the hotel watched the video is disgusting. Maybe 75 million is too much to ask for but this would make me want to stay inside and never leave my house. This will never go away and she will feel as if each man she meets has watched it. I feel horrible for any woman who has something like this happen in this age of the internet.
The stalker requested a reservation for the room next to Ms Andrews , and then changed the peephole so that he could video through it. Obviously , this isn’t a quick procedure. Where was security? The hotel obviously did not provide a safe environment for a guest.
There is actually a whole body of law which covers this sort of thing - premises liability law. I think it goes something like this :
When someone is a guest in a hotel, the law implies a contract between the hotel and the guest that, in addition to providing accommodation, the hotel will exercise proper care for the guest’s safety. I think the standard is “reasonable care.” Under the law the injury would have to be “foreseeable” - so when Marriott gave Barrett the information and then booked him into the room next to her, was it “foreseeable” that could cause injury to Andrews.
If a hotel breaches that duty of “reasonable care” for a guest’s safety, that gives rise to a cause of action for negligence, which is at the core of Andrew’s complaint. Basically, Andrews asserts that the hotel was negligent in hiring, training and supervising the employees who “unwittingly” aided Barrett.
Not my area of practice, but I think she has a decent case. If I were representing Marriott I would spend my time on proving why the $75 million damage request is excessive.
" If I were representing Marriott I would spend my time on proving why the $75 million damage request is excessive."
HarvestMoon, based on what the SI article says, it looks like the hotel is going for that exact defense strategy: there was no injury from their negligence because the publicity only benefited Ms. Andrews’ career, so even if there was any negligence, it did not amount to much at all. Let’s just see if the jury will buy that…
@harvestmoom1:
Thank you for explaining that,it matches pretty much what I thought. I suspect the lawyers may try to argue that by telling someone the room number that they had no reason to foresee a problem, but I would hope a jury would look at that really skeptically, that like, duh, why is the guy asking what room she is in? And if the employee then booked him the room next door, well, would take a pretty dimwitted person not to put two and two together…
I agree, if I was a lawyer (which the legal profession should be very glad I am not), I would try and argue that the compensation demand was out of line with the negligence, and from what I have read that is what it sounds like the lawyer is doing, trying to argue that the harm to Ms. Andrews didn’t justify that kind of punitive penalty and that she was going for the deep pockets (since suing the clown who did this wouldn’t get her a thin dime).
I agree with others, I don’t know why they didn’t settle, for Marriot that would seem the smart thing to do.
I’ve worked in hotels. Typically with a celebrity the policy is that you don’t even acknowledge that they’re at the hotel. And you don’t give out anyone’s room number.
I don’t think the stalking/peephole business was forseeable, but some kind of danger certainly was. In my experience traveling, the front desk people are very careful to never say my room number out loud, so no one nearby hears it; they write it on the little envelope in which the key card is placed. And that’s also why these days the key card itself doesn’t have the room number written on it in any way. It’s all done to keep the guest safe.
"While waiting for his room, Barrett said he went to the hotel restaurant, where he found a house phone that displays room numbers and called the operator.
“Can I have Erin Andrews’ room?” he recalled asking.
“They connected me,” Barrett continued. “On the house phone it shows a room number, so I knew what room she was in.”
Barrett went to the 10th-floor room and saw that a maid was cleaning the one next door, so he requested to stay there.
“So I went back to the front desk and told them about the room,” he explained. “They went back and verified for me that it was ready, and they checked me into that room.”
He knew he’d been put next to Andrews, because he could “hear her talking on the phone” on his way in, he said. Their rooms were in an alcove, hidden from view by anyone standing in the hallway, Barrett said."
Hold up, everyone. I’m here in Nashville and we are all very plugged into the trial. I personally know the lawyer for Marriott. There is a lot of misinformation here.
Firstly, of course they tried to settle the case. 75M is really over-reaching, and the plaintiff never came down to a reasonable demand so the case couldn’t settle. Her lawyer is a big hitter and only takes big cases and goes for the bleachers. Erin Andrews is trying to make a point. While Dedman (defense lawyer) had to use a risky strategy of pointing out that she was not, in fact, economically harmed, he pretty much had to do this since they are asking for $75M. Really? I think $1M tops or, as one analyst said, maybe $50K. I am not convinced Marriott or the management company was all that negligent. Not every desk clerk knew who Erin Andrews was. Yes, in a perfect world they would have known this guy was a creep-o and not given out the room number. They made a mistake, but I doubt this man would have been easily deterred.
It’s up to the jury to decide how negligent the parties were. We shall see. I feel badly for her. It was a horrible thing and it did traumatize her for life. ESPN didn’t help matters. However, $75M??? Um, no. And no economic harm.
Where is the misinformation in the thread? I don’t think anyone really commented on attempted settlement and it was noted the requested damages were excessive.
I think I read that the average “wrongful death” award is around $3.5 million. When you consider that data point it would be hard to imagine that she would get anywhere near $75 million. Thinking that since she has no physical injuries (which is what usually gets the higher awards), her damages will be limited to psychological damages and perhaps damage to her reputation (which are questionable given she is still very much in demand). I am not sure if she can ask for punitive damages to send a message to the hotel industry.
I wish I could say I’m shocked that anyone would defend Marriott or claim there was no economic harm.
I think too many of us are desensitized because of reality stars who became famous by selling sex tapes. For someone to have a serious career in the public eye, while having photos like this available, will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
If Marriott gives out any names or room numbers, regardless of celebrity status, of course they are at fault. If they allow customers to use phones that reveal room numbers, they are negligent.
If she had settled, no one would know that they are putting themselves at risk like this in hotels. I hope she wins big.
I also hope she wins big. The minimal settlement offer by Marriott sounds too small for serious consideration.
It makes NO sense that callers can see room numbers of guests, when they won’t disclose room numbers. That is a MAJOR problem and not something I would expect at a major chain like Marriott.
I have rarely stayed at a Marriott and expect to further reduce my stays there.
