Erin Andrews wants 75 million?

[QuarrelsomeIrishAmerican]

Kim Kardashian is her comp and she made $52.5M in 2015, so Erin's $55M settlement is right in line. Keep 'em vids coming ladies.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Good for her. She was violated in a very public way and deserves to be compensated by them.

Wrongfully incarcerated citizens get a wayyyyy lower payout than this.

Reasons like this are why a lot of people are upset that an already rich person, is getting more rich.

I'm on Erin's side, 100%. But unfortunately, this is going to get a very mixed public reaction, and will only continue to reinforce bad judgment from dumbasses.

Sure she could donate the money, become a "woman's right advocate" (something of that nature), and made a "statement" by doing so.

But, I realize that's not her responsibility. She doesn't owe it to anyone, if she doesn't want to. If she wants to take the money and run, more power to her.

 

[Blaise]

How much do you think a "regular person" would have received for this? I've heard of cases where ex-boyfriends put up images/videos of their exes online. Wonder what they would have received.

Obviously helps if you can sue a corporation instead of a loser ex-boyfriend.

I feel like these are two different things.. Typically a guy or girl will consent when taking nude pictures or videos.. The guy is a ahole when he posts them online and should go to jail IMO but its not the same thing as some stalker video taping a girl without her knowledge and a hotel "aiding" in it

 

[bkess8]

I look at this from a fatherly prospective. Her personal space was violated and the hotel had a part to play in that action. I'm glad she was compensated and I don't think you could assign a value to that IMO. I know I would be pissed if my daughter had to go though this.

 

[Woneone]

I feel like these are two different things.. Typically a guy or girl will consent when taking nude pictures or videos.. The guy is a ahole when he posts them online and should go to jail IMO but its not the same thing as some stalker video taping a girl without her knowledge and a hotel "aiding" in it

I wonder what people's opinion of the Hulk Hogan case is at this point, now that Erin Andrews got $55 million.

Hogan was tapped banging his best friends wife, apparently without his consent. The tape was sent to Gawker, and they published on their site, again, without his consent. He's suing for $100 million.

I'm sure there are some different circumstances involved, but on the surface it seems the principal is the same, but one seems to be like a much more explicit act. I wonder how his racial remarks will play into it as well.

 

[BGIF]

Good for her. She was violated in a very public way and deserves to be compensated by them.

Yes, she does. But $55 or $27 million is disproportionate. She had her privacy stolen. Millions of women do. There have been Peeping Tom's landlords, employers, co-workers, class mates, and thugs with peep holes or cameras in hotel rooms, apartments, shopping changing rooms, bathrooms, showers, etc, etc. since men and women wore clothes.

If she gets that number, what do the woman or young girl get for being fondled, rubbed against, ... raped.

Impregnated by a rapist, given an STD.

Carjacking? With an infant in the car?

Mugged and house keys stolen?

Mugged and got an arm broken?

Yes, he put the video up on the internet. Hardly original. Wasn't Judge Judy one of thousands of women who have had nude photos or videos put up on the internet. They may have consented to the original pic being taken for private consumption but they didn't consent to millions viewing it. There are websites devoted to exploiting such videos and others to help woman who experienced exposure and loss of privacy.

Yes, a Marriott employee erred. The invasion of privacy wasn't deliberate, it was against policy, and as it turned out it wasn't the first time. She had a stalker. Obsessed with her. Who followed around the country doing the same thing at other places. Because she noticed it and the stalker was caught (and sent to prison) Marriott gets the burden of a cumlative penalty.

Disproportionate.

 

[Irish YJ]

IMO appropriate. The fine had to be big enough to punish the guilty. I'm not sure if that fine even makes Marriott itch even a little bit.

I'm not an EA fan at all, but she was damaged. Does 50mil damage Marriott? She'll have to live with this her entire life while Marriott moves on without missing a beat.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

IMO appropriate. The fine had to be big enough to punish the guilty. I'm not sure if that fine even makes Marriott itch even a little bit.

I'm not an EA fan at all, but she was damaged. Does 50mil damage Marriott? She'll have to live with this her entire life while Marriott moves on without missing a beat.

A lot of people get killed/maimed and get far lower penalties. I understand punitive damages but damn.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Just to clear something up, Marriott the company isn't on the hook for the judgment. Many Marriott hotels aren't owned by the corporate Mariott, but are franchises. I believe that this particular Marriott is a franchise hotel and its owners are liable here.

 

[Irish YJ]

Just to clear something up, Marriott the company isn't on the hook for the judgment. Many Marriott hotels aren't owned by the corporate Mariott, but are franchises. I believe that this particular Marriott is a franchise hotel and its owners are liable here.

Not Marriott, but likely a lot more than a franchisee

On Friday, Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Hamilton Gayden found Barrett at fault and left it up to jurors to decide if the hotel owner, West End Hotel Partners, and former operator, Windsor Capital Group, should share any responsibility. The hotel is a franchise and Marriott was not part of the trial

 

[Rhode Irish]

Sorry, doesn't that explicitly say that the hotel is a franchise?

 

[Irish#1]

Sorry, doesn't that explicitly say that the hotel is a franchise?

Most hotels are franchises. Before the verdict, I was wondering how much Marriot vs. the franchise would get hit with this.

$55 is a lot more than the $10 I predicted and felt it was worth, but good for her for getting it.

There is never going to be a fair compensation chart that tells judges and juries who should get what. My guess is those that sue and get far less for situations that appear to be more severe than this don't have the money and/or fame to hire a top lawyer.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I look at this from a fatherly prospective. Her personal space was violated and the hotel had a part to play in that action. I'm glad she was compensated and I don't think you could assign a value to that IMO. I know I would be pissed if my daughter had to go though this.

Completely agree.

 

[Irish YJ]

Sorry, doesn't that explicitly say that the hotel is a franchise?

It is a franchise location, however WCG and West End are groups/corps. It's not like this hotel is owned by a single person who will go belly up. WCG alone has at least 10 properties between Hilton and Marriott. I believe WE is even larger and is not limited to the hospitality space.

I did think this was a corp location at first, but it is a franchise (group not single site). when the judge decided he took into consideration the total worth of whomever owns it. I'd venture to guess that either one of these groups, or both if they share the burden, will be just fine after paying out the amount.

 

[NDRock]

I wonder what people's opinion of the Hulk Hogan case is at this point, now that Erin Andrews got $55 million.

Hogan was tapped banging his best friends wife, apparently without his consent. The tape was sent to Gawker, and they published on their site, again, without his consent. He's suing for $100 million.

I'm sure there are some different circumstances involved, but on the surface it seems the principal is the same, but one seems to be like a much more explicit act. I wonder how his racial remarks will play into it as well.

Interesting. I had not even heard of the Hogan case. Based on your summary I would think the Hogan tape is worse. Releasing a sex tape against someone's consent is worse than the video shot of Andrews. Heck if the Andrews video was of her having sex it would have been much worse, IMO. Either way, both instances are violations of someone's privacy and should be punished accordingly. I suspect that with Hogan being a man and banging his friend's wife he won't see much money.

 

[Rhode Irish]

It is a franchise location, however WCG and West End are groups/corps. It's not like this hotel is owned by a single person who will go belly up. WCG alone has at least 10 properties between Hilton and Marriott. I believe WE is even larger and is not limited to the hospitality space.

I did think this was a corp location at first, but it is a franchise (group not single site). when the judge decided he took into consideration the total worth of whomever owns it. I'd venture to guess that either one of these groups, or both if they share the burden, will be just fine after paying out the amount.

Right, but you're arguing against a point I never made. I am not expressing any kind of sympathy for the franchisee, nor was I trying to imply that this was some sort of mom and pop Marriott (?) or something. I was only making the factual assertion that it isn't Marriott the company that is on the hook for this judgment, it is the owner(s) of this particular Marriott franchise. I assume that most franchisees of franchises like Marriott are private equity types of investment entities, rather than a Mr. & Mrs. Smith who decided to buy a hotel.

 

[phgreek]

I look at this, and the various comparisons made, and the inferences to fair/just...and part of me agrees.

However part of me looks at the nature of hotels/motels, and the presumption of trust, and I believe some of the $$$ was meant as a warning shot. Giving Andrews a $5M settlement wasn't going to get anyone's attention...$55M gets everyone's attention, and you can bet everyone from proprietors to Franchisers and franchisees noticed, and understand the implications. This certainly allows executives to speak on the topic of security policy to investors in terms they understand...pay some to evaluate/update equipment, policies, and procedures, or hope you are lucky enough to avoid the hit to cash flow and good will by not doing so.

Edit: And BTW none of us can presume what impact it had or will have on her career. Her potential income could certainly be impacted, and she wasn't making 50K / year when this happened. What we do know is whatever she might have made above 55M (27M) is likely a good tradeoff for having it all up front....

 

[RDU Irish]

Punitive damages are a slippery slope. One on one, you ruin someone's life and they sue you for all you are worth is one thing. Holding an entire corporation hostage for a couple of idiot employee's actions is another. Bigger the wallet = bigger the damages is the way of American Law. If you can't attach deep pockets to a case you aren't going to find a lawyer to give a shit.

If there is a systemic problem in the way this hotel group runs things creating gross negligence then I can see this type of award - if it were also applied to a class of victims (i.e. split amongst a few dozen identified victims).

That said - just like a surgeon has more damages than a mechanic if they lose their hands, she stands to lose a lot more professionally than some random traveler with no public profile.

End of the day, look for hotels to insure against idiot employee negligence like this. Premiums go up substantially and the entire industry pays with pleasure since they know these cases will come out of the woodwork now that this precedent has been set. Lawyers win as settlements come fast and easy with any victims they can conjure up.

 

[phgreek]

Punitive damages are a slippery slope. One on one, you ruin someone's life and they sue you for all you are worth is one thing. Holding an entire corporation hostage for a couple of idiot employee's actions is another. Bigger the wallet = bigger the damages is the way of American Law. If you can't attach deep pockets to a case you aren't going to find a lawyer to give a shit.

If there is a systemic problem in the way this hotel group runs things creating gross negligence then I can see this type of award - if it were also applied to a class of victims (i.e. split amongst a few dozen identified victims).

That said - just like a surgeon has more damages than a mechanic if they lose their hands, she stands to lose a lot more professionally than some random traveler with no public profile.

End of the day, look for hotels to insure against idiot employee negligence like this. Premiums go up substantially and the entire industry pays with pleasure since they know these cases will come out of the woodwork now that this precedent has been set. Lawyers win as settlements come fast and easy with any victims they can conjure up.

Certainly a possible-likely consequence. They'll probably even get set up by celebrities on the way down. But I also think policies and procedures at these places will improve/be enforced better, and there will be additional investments in technological solutions to prevent similar issues. I know it made me think about an entire host of technologies that exist in the realm of battle damage assessment that speak to integrity of walls, doors, you name it, that might apply here, in addition to proximity sensing of electronic devices...much of it is expensive now, but as all things do, they'll get cheaper and more mainstream in application.

 

[dales5050]

End of the day, look for hotels to insure against idiot employee negligence like this. Premiums go up substantially and the entire industry pays with pleasure since they know these cases will come out of the woodwork now that this precedent has been set. Lawyers win as settlements come fast and easy with any victims they can conjure up.

Isn't the simplest solution for hotels is to add something to their terms of service that Liability will not exceed more than $5000.00 or something like that? Using a hotel room is a two way street. If a guest does not want to agree to those terms, they don't have to stay there.


That said, I am somewhat happy about this judgement for the simple reason that it makes any company or corporation liable for the privacy of their clients when it is reasonable to expect it.

For example there are still some companies that ask to take an imprint of your credit card rather than using a machine. The reason they still do this is to save money on processing. However, this way has much much less security involved.

If a company is going to take a short cut here and keep paper records of your CC info, they should also be liable for the risk of keeping your info.

Privacy is a huge spectrum and it's hardly taken seriously or as serious as it needs to be,

 

[Irish#1]

Good thing she didn't stay here.

 

[IrishLax]

I wonder what people's opinion of the Hulk Hogan case is at this point, now that Erin Andrews got $55 million.

Hogan was tapped banging his best friends wife, apparently without his consent. The tape was sent to Gawker, and they published on their site, again, without his consent. He's suing for $100 million.

I'm sure there are some different circumstances involved, but on the surface it seems the principal is the same, but one seems to be like a much more explicit act. I wonder how his racial remarks will play into it as well.

The Hogan case is quite different to me, because Gawker knowingly and intentionally broke the law for a profit.

No hotel employees in this case knew they were giving information to a stalker who would do what he did. And they sure as hell didn't do it to enrich themselves.

So I hope Hogan takes Gawker for every dime they have, because what they did was sick. For Andrews, I can't really see why the onus is on anyone other than the perpetrator because he conned the employees of the hotel into making a mistake.

 

[Irish YJ]

Right, but you're arguing against a point I never made. I am not expressing any kind of sympathy for the franchisee, nor was I trying to imply that this was some sort of mom and pop Marriott (?) or something. I was only making the factual assertion that it isn't Marriott the company that is on the hook for this judgment, it is the owner(s) of this particular Marriott franchise. I assume that most franchisees of franchises like Marriott are private equity types of investment entities, rather than a Mr. & Mrs. Smith who decided to buy a hotel.

Lots of mom and pops in the hospitality space. rich moms, and rich pops, but they are there.