MOWC, You weren’t at the table, so IMO you can’t say with certainty what “really” happened. Remember that immediately after the incident, the rep said the waitress had made the whole thing up; nobody was watching the video. Then, after speaking to a lawyer, he issued a statement saying that a companion was watching and he told him immediately to stop. By that point, IMO, his credibility is shot. I’m a lawyer too. Clients lie to their attorneys and especially to their employer’s attorneys. I’m not assuming because Marriott’s lawyer says it didn’t happen, it didn’t. Please understand I am NOT saying the lawyer is lying; I’m confident that he believes the version of events the rep has told him. That doesn’t mean the version is really what happened.
I don’t think Marriott threatened the waitress. I would be shocked though if her employer didn’t. Lots of people have conversations in restaurants they wouldn’t want broadcasted . A server is expected to be discreet. She was appalled and I get that, but if business people or celebrities think that a waiter is going to report what they said to the media, they’ll eat elsewhere.
I find the defense of the hotel by the lawyers in saying that she benefitting by the ordeal absolutely nauseating and frankly, based on that alone don’t view those lawyers as reputable or as above intimidating witnesses.
That is basically misstating what the testimony was about. They had to address the demand for $75M. They showed that her income increased since the incident and that she had great professional success. It was not about her “benefiting from the ordeal”. It was about the amount of damages that should be awarded considering economic impact. There is no disputing the emotional damage and the trauma. No one at all has disputed the horrific nature of what happened or the impact on her emotional and mental health. It was strictly a matter of economic damages.
Well, she should have no trouble collecting from Marriott and garnishing the stalker’s wages and assets for life! I’m sure there will be an appeal and attempt by defendants to reduce the award.
She won’t see that much, of course. She won’t see a dime of the 51% from the guy and the Marriott entities will appeal and settle for less. Everyone here is shocked. Clear message.
Let’s see if this translates promptly to better security to prevent future stalkers from repeating these nefarious actions. The jury was clearly sending a message.
To be clear- none of this is against Marriott International. It’s a private investment group and the management company. Nothing against the national chain.
Yes, never knew Marriotts are not all owned by same megacorp. Most public would assume ONE company that can make international policy and have it followed.
I completely disagree that it was a misstatement. But I can understand why someone who is friends with the lawyers who came up with the defense would try to justify it.
If it wasn’t what they meant, they aren’t very good at communicating although I am sure they will have a spin on it now since it fell so flat.
I think in retrospect trying to show that financially Andrews did well after the incident may have angered the jury (I would have been if I were a juror). There are a lot of things mentioned in this thread that do not show a great deal of sympathy for her ordeal by Marriott–I’m sure that was weighed in deliberations.
So what happens if a person is sued for more than they could ever pay? A person has to pay for food and rent and basic living expenses, how is that handled?
Actually, how she recovers depends on the statue of where her award was received. In some states (like HI), she can get 100% from any of the defendants found responsible (Marriott) and have the defendants fight among themselves (eg deadbeat stalker) for reimbursement. In any case, this would be after appeals to reduce award are exhausted.