Then that person is “judgment proof.” She most likely will not bother pursuing him unless she just wants to make him really miserable. My feeling is a guy like that will have already taken steps to make sure she can’t reach what little he has. I read he works for his dad so he is probably being paid in cash and declares little.
I am assuming the corporate defendants were insured, so she hopefully will collect from them when all is said and done with the appeals process.
In a joint and several liability state, it’s the other defendants problem if one of them is judgement proof, not the innocent plaintiff.
I thought that initially too @HImom, but then I read this in one of the articles on the litigation:
Guess it will depend on how a court views the whole “acted in concert” idea.
HIMom, the hotel in question was a franchisee not owned by Marriott, just like UPS stores are not owned by UPS. If I license my IP to someone, can I be found liable for the actions of the licensee? It really depends, for example, on degree of control and many other things.
I think the fact that the damage is so permanent - like an incurable viral infection - played into the jury’s decision to award $55M. I hope it is therapeutic for Erin even though there will be appeals.
mom2two- I am not “friends” with the defense lawyer. I know him very well professionally. I guess you must have been on the jury, since you know so much about their thought processes! How nice for you!
I’m not at all sure the hotel entities have enough insurance to cover this verdict, but I suspect it will be reduced either before or on appeal. You never know what juries will do or what they are thinking. I hope some of the jurors give their thoughts. This has huge ramifications for any public facility with rest rooms, etc, including retail stores, gas stations, and transportation depots. I hope the public isn’t going to mind paying for whatever comes of all this.
I agree with Bunsen that the fact that the pictures and videos will never go away was probably the determining factor.
I am very glad that Erin got the big verdict. As someone who spends way too much time in hotel rooms, I’m pretty disgusted by how the Marriott handled this. Or perhaps they handled it this way on advice of their lawyers…apparently very bad advice. I am often amazed at the lack of security in hotels, even though I generally stay at the nicer, large hotel chains-Hilton, Marriott, Sheraton. You make a call to security, it could take them forever to get up there. You misplace your key card or it won’t open the door any more, they’ll make you a new one without even asking your name or for identification quite often. The lackadaisical approach to personal security amazes me.
What do you not like about how Marriott handled it? The one hotel (independently run) clearly handled their security improperly. I don’t know what you would object to about how they defended the case. They blamed the man who filmed her. They offered a significant settlement pre-trial. They defended the case appropriately in order to try to avoid a runaway verdict. It didn’t work. I still don’t know what else the defense was supposed to do. That’s what trials are for. You represent your client. I doubt the verdict would have been any lower if they hadn’t pointed out that her career had not been harmed economically.
As you pointed out, the standard of care in the hotel industry might not be what we would like. I just don’t think Marriott was $27M off of that standard of care.
Can the perp file bankruptcy and squirm out of any repayment?
This was a nightmare, and I know the verdict was because the jury saw where the damages needed to be awarded.
It does help restore some dignity to Erin, but the damages she suffered can never be reversed.
“What do you not like about how Marriott handled it? The one hotel (independently run) clearly handled their security improperly. I don’t know what you would object to about how they defended the case. They blamed the man who filmed her. They offered a significant settlement pre-trial. They defended the case appropriately in order to try to avoid a runaway verdict. It didn’t work. I still don’t know what else the defense was supposed to do. That’s what trials are for. You represent your client. I doubt the verdict would have been any lower if they hadn’t pointed out that her career had not been harmed economically”
How much was the significant pre-trial settlement that they offered?
I suspect that the defense of showing pictures of Erin in Dancing with the Stars, to show how comfortable she must be wearing revealing clothes didn’t go down too well. The implication that she did just fine after the incident, maybe even profited from it, also didn’t help. She was sympathetic and believable, and the strategy of this being no big deal, that it didn’t hurt-maybe even helped her career, could easily have come across offensively. That is what I think, just from reading the news reports, who knows how accurate they truly are. But something must have hit home with the jury.
A crazily high verdict is not a done deal. But if you anger and disgust the jury enough by your strategy (which apparently they did), seems like you can lose big.
What isn’t correct is the statement that the defense tried to say this was no big deal. They did just the opposite. They never waivered from the recognition that it was a horrible crime against her- one that was caused by the man who filmed her. They showed that her income was not adversely affected. You have to do that in the face of a claim for huge damages. The hope was that an award would be for the emotional harm and that it would be less.
With a trial, unless you are in the courtroom, it is really hard to assess the testimony. There were a lot of lawyers in the courtroom reporting- ones that I trust. It did hurt the defense to point out her increased income over the years- but it had to be done.
I think she deserved a substantial verdict- but not this much. I don’t think money means anything to jurors. It’s all just play money.
Well…the Washington Post pretty much blames the outcome on incompetent defense counsel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/03/06/legal-experts-saying-erin-andrews-benefited-from-peephole-video-is-a-bad-defense/ And during the trial there were some reports from media which cover trials saying that the defense was way too aggressive during cross of Andrews.
“With a trial, unless you are in the courtroom, it is really hard to assess the testimony. There were a lot of lawyers in the courtroom reporting- ones that I trust. It did hurt the defense to point out her increased income over the years- but it had to be done.”
Yes, how can one assess something when they aren’t there? If we are reading other people’s opinions, that is just their opinion, and maybe we would not have come to the same conclusion.
“I think she deserved a substantial verdict- but not this much. I don’t think money means anything to jurors. It’s all just play money.”
Sometimes I wonder how much education in psychology lawyers are required to take. It seems like it would be extremely useful to have a large foundation in psychology and understanding how people react to things. Emotion is very powerful, maybe even more so than logic for some. While a defense that many might consider to be distasteful might be logical and accurate, if it offends the jury, maybe there’s a gentle way to work in that defense, that doesn’t anger people.
The fact is that her income did increase. It is probably impossible to deal with that in a way that isn’t turned against you. Most people aren’t asking for $75M. Do you really believe that’s a reasonable demand here? I just don’t!
This issue comes up with surveillance of plaintiffs. They are asking for millions of dollars from an injury, yet they get all bent out of shape if a PI follows them around. We’ve caught many a “permanently disabled” plaintiff skiing or hauling kegs of beer.
I guess maybe the jury found it distasteful that the defense assumed no responsibility for an act that occurred on their property, on their watch and their defense was to blame everyone else including the victim. It’s clear that you don’t agree with the verdict, but the bottom line is what the jurors agreed with and believed.
I don’t think that 75 million is a reasonable demand, however I think you might have been the one that thought 50K would have been reasonable, which I wouldn’t have accepted for my dog being filmed naked. Well, okay, maybe I would. However, I’d assume they ask for more than they think they’re going to get.
It’s pretty disgusting when the supposed “permanently disabled” are defrauding the people they are suing. There seems to be a lot of people scamming the system.
I thought $1-5M would have been reasonable. I would not have been shocked by a lesser verdict from a middle TN jury. I’m. It sure if I ever mentioned $50K. If I did, I moved off of that.
The defense never blamed the victim. Why would you even say that? It was her own employer who made her prove it wasn’t a publicity stunt.
Her income increasing may mean that she has not suffered economic damages. Maybe. But the damage to her - the PTSD for someone whose career pretty much requires her to spend nights in hotel rooms? The knowledge that the video will be out there forever, and that she is likely to be on the receiving end of smirks and comments for many years? Her damages are reasonably much, much higher than those that might have been determined for an unknown woman who is not in the public eye.
I’ve never seen covers for door peepholes before. I wonder if that will become part of the brand standard for many hotel chains?
I wonder whether this case will be a bellwether case for business responsibility for privacy and security? There have been enough terrible invasions of privacy that perhaps it has finally reached a tipping point. I hope so.
I hope we are all ready to pay the price for these protections. I work for a large company that does its best to protect our employees and our customers. However, a single employee can make a mistake or be just a bad person. Things happen. You can not protect against every single thing. It just can’t be done. I deal with things that are so outlandish that no one could anticipate them. Usually the consequences are fairly minor.
Hotel clerks have done things like this before and will do them again. In the majority of cases, there will be no problems. Peepholes will be covered but the next time someone will unscrew an electrical outlet plate or be up in the ceiling!
I hope Erin Andrews enjoys her new Marriott that she’s about to own!
“The defense never blamed the victim. Why would you even say that? That’s stupid. It was her own employer who made her prove it wasn’t a publicity stunt.”
I didn’t say that the defense blamed the victim. Not sure if anybody did.
I guess today’s turn of events would be very disconcerting to a defense attorney, especially when one was expecting a much more meager settlement. I don’t think it’s necessary to say other poster’s opinions are stupid just because they are different from your own @MomofWildChild .