This is the first I heard of this case. From the information in the article you posted she is suing Marriott because "employees at Marriott revealed Andrews was a guest at their hotel, gave Barrett her room number and also granted his request to have the room next to hers". Barrett being a stalker who apparently was able to film Andrews while in the nude through a keyhole.
I'm curious as to what kind of proof she has that the Vanderbilt Marriott employees gave the stalker that type of information and/or purposely assigned him a room next to hers. If she doesn't have concrete proof that this occurred then the lawsuit would certainly be dismissed.
How do you film thru a peephole? Like he filmed thru his of her walking by?
I had to deal with a stalker in Houston once at a Hilton. I knew this guy for a few years but I ended our friendship because he became pushy. I had a convention in Houston and was staying at a Hilton. He of course knew I had the convention as it was booked about 6 months in advance. I was not sure if I would really see him there as he said, but I told the hotel when I checked in that they were not to give my room number out, I was not expecting anyone and if someone did request, to notify me. I also gave them his name.
He did show up and was asking where I was via text. I told him if he didn't leave me alone, I was going to call security as he was not a registered guest and I had already put the hotel on "alert".
I didn't fee very safe...I was terrified actually. I checked out very early the next morning and didn't finish up at the convention. I would have been livid if the hotel gave info out. I would have by passed hotel security and called the cops. That will make a scene for sure.
On the flip side... I called the Lexington Hotel in NY as my mom was staying there taking classes at GIA. I asked if she had checked in yet and the lady told me yes. I then sent flowers to the hotel. I did ask if a room number was required and she said no. It sounded like they do not give that out.
When I first started this post back in October 2015 I think I took the title of the post right from a headline in the news, similar to one I saw on March 1, 2016
There is another thread on MRI started recently on this subject and I've been reading some interesting info there also.
Thanks phctourist for pointing out the distinction.
Thanks, I just saw that and I put a note on the other thread.
I wonder how this will impact Marriott??
Thanks, I just saw that and I put a note on the other thread.
I wonder how this will impact Marriott??
This should not have a big impact on Marriott, if they handle it correctly, unless this is a more pervasive problem than it appears. It is one franchised hotel and though it carries the Marriott name, it does not seem to be representative, in any way, of the chain.
If I were Mr. Sorenson or Mr. Marriott, I would dump this hotel!
I do think that the award is extremely excessive, and it should be reduced by considerably more than half. Nevertheless there is no question that Ms. Andrews deserves a large settlement.
Geez, brightlybob, I think you're being a little harsh on the victim. I realize tabloids are often the medium of choice in the UK and salacity drives sales, but let's not lose sight of the crime that was actually committed, and who the perpetrator was.
From an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune:
"The legal defense team's stance was to suggest Andrews — a well-known reporter on top sports television networks for more than a decade — has seen her career and earnings improve because of this video. They're basically saying, 'So what? You got something out of this, didn't you?' It's the same tired accusations we hear time and again when women accuse famous male athletes of sexual assault. She must have a motive, right? She's after the money. She's after fame.
"Andrews, unfortunately, hasn't been exempt from this flawed way of thinking, which is ingrained into our society and perhaps even more so in sports...ESPN, her employer at the time, told her she must speak publicly about the incident to quell rumors that she had leaked the videos herself before she would be allowed back on the air. "My bosses at ESPN told me, 'Before you go back on air for college football we need you to give a sit-down interview,'" she testified. "And that was the only way I was going to be allowed back.
"I can't imagine a male sports reporter being treated this way if he were the victim of a crime. Would he need to prove he didn't profit from being victimized? Would he have to assert he wasn't part of a publicity stunt? That he didn't have a motive? The demeaning way Andrews has been treated highlights the uphill battle women face when they are victimized through sexual assault, sexual harassment or when their privacy is invaded."
Personally, I believe she deserves every red cent!
Agree that the hotel's defense approach was wrong, and likely backfired, seeing as they are responsible for 49% of the award. They should have been focused on getting the bulk of the inevitable award assigned to the perpetrator, minimizing the damage to themselves.
But $55 million is a rather large sum, and as many have said will likely be reduced upon appeal. As brightlybob has said, with that amount she could quite easily live out the rest of her life without lifting a finger, and that seems rather excessive to me.
True, but the jury is not her husband or father, either, and for good reason. How does one put a price on her victimization? That is the unfortunate requirement of a judge and jury in such a case, and in an ideal world would be analyzed as objectively as possible. As awful as it sounds subjectively, when viewed objectively it is true that she has received significantly increased visibility in the public because of this incident. Did she ask for it? Certainly not. Was any of it her choice? Again, certainly not. But the fact is she has financially benefited in her career as a broadcaster, and the publicity has opened up additional income channels for her as a public figure. That should not have been the focus of the hotel's defense, but it still should have some weight in the decision and the sum awarded to her. As should the fact that her increased public following could increase the likelihood of further stalking, requiring additional security, the almost certain psychological counseling that may continue for the rest of her life, etc. So many factors need to be assessed in such a case, I'd be very happy to never serve on such a jury as it would give me a massive headache. She deserves a substantial award, no question about that, but the question of how much would vary greatly depending on the individual asked. And to me, admittedly not aware of all the details of the case, $55 million is an excessive amount.
The issue here is the defense did not have a viable defense. She won her case, and the award was made. 55M$ dollars was a fair settlement determined by a jury using the rules of law in the state of the offence. There may be appeals and settlements but there is no point in second guessing the award of a jury.
hassmh Just maybe those jurors had the empathy to think, "How would I feel if this was my spouse or daughter?" That would certainly play a part in my deliberations were I ever to serve on such a case. And perhaps those same jurors decided to send a statement to the Marriott in Nashville and the Radisson in Milwaukee that they, too, will be held accountable for such egregious lapses of security -- and common sense. And I say, "Bravo!"
And it goes without saying that I appreciate the respectful tone and thoughtful nature of your discussion posts, qualities that have been in short supply in recent weeks in some MRI circles.
Yes, I certainly can empathize, however the role of the jury should be objective in the awarding of a judgement, otherwise precedent can be set that further exacerbates the problem of frivolous suits. But the empathetic side of the story is where punitive damages can come into play, depending on the legal environment which varies state-to-state (btw - I'm not an attorney, thank God! But I do know a small bit about such things). If punitive damages are part of the award, then that is a very different story.
I personally don't think punitive damages are good for an individual plaintiff, as it often dramatically inflates the award which they don't necessarily "deserve" and also has been shown to cause frivolous suits in search of the windfall award akin to a lottery winning. Punitive damages being redirected into the state coffers to be used for the public good would be preferable in my opinion; give the plaintiff the appropriate award and send the appropriate message to the offenders and any potential offenders at the same time.
I do enjoy the intellectual exercise of debating opinions in a civilized manner. Perhaps I should have been an attorney after all!
I think what you are forgetting in your lucid argument is what will Erin likely get. As I understand the settlement, the jury held for the plaintiff against two defendants. One defendant has no money so she will get nothing. That leaves the Marriott the other defendant on the hook for half. I expect that the law firm will take a big chunk of the remaining 27 or so million. Marriott will try very hard to settle with her for say 15 million. that divides by three nicely so she will get about 10.
I agree with Mr Fox on the emotional side of this however it is the responsibility of the jurors to look objectively based on fact and fairness and I think they did exactly that.
I am not a legal expert, so I could easily be incorrect, but I do not think the ability of the defendant to pay should have anything to do with the amount of the judgement in the jury's eyes; simply because a defendant does not have means to pay should not alter the outcome as the judgement becomes part of the legal environment for future cases in that court and thus impacts any case relying on its outcome as a basis for precedent.
I agree with your analysis that she is not likely to get much from the actual perpetrator of the crime, which is unfortunate as he should bear the majority of the burden in this case. But as she will retain a judgement, she should be able to collect a portion of anything he has or earns until the limitations on collection runs out. Hopefully he has some assets that she can collect from and receive at least a small amount of the judgement due to her.
Not disputing your discussion, it has validity but the original point was that she had more than enough to live for the rest of her life without doing anything, My point is after delinquency of payment, settlement, legal cut she would get 10 and after taxes she may get 5 or 6 M$.
I maintain that this wasn't a frivolous suit -- and I'm not saying you thought it was. I think it took courage for Andrews to pursue it for EIGHT years, knowing that even if she prevailed, many would portray her as avaricious. And I've seen quotes from two of the jurors, stating they DID indeed think of their own family members when deliberating, as well as the pain it would cause them. As a "jury of one's peers," I think that's only natural for anyone who truly wants to see justice done.
No, certainly this was not frivolous. The problem with awards of such a large amount is that they tend to encourage frivolous cases that pursue similar results, though they are doomed to fail in the vast majority of cases. This puts an unnecessary burden on the justice system, and our tax dollars, and impacts truly important cases such as this, for which the justice system is really needed. That is the issue I have with the awarding of punitive damages to a plaintiff. Were I a politician, one of my goals of office would be to redirect punitive damages into public funds used for the public good, so statements can be made through judgements in cases such as this, but not award outrageous (not that this is, just somewhat excessive in my opinion) amounts to plaintiffs to "make a point."
In short, my beef is really with all the "ambulance chasers" who bog down the system with piles of cases hoping to win "the big one" and impede true cases like this from coming to trial.
A few final comments from me.
When I first heard the dollar amount Erin Andrews was asking I thought it seemed excessive but then I tried to put myself in her position. I’ve never been stalked, I’ve never been secretly filmed and the video put on the internet, I’ve never been humiliated in such a manner, I’ve never been afraid in a hotel. She has to live with all those things now. I saw her when she was talking about her future kids being teased about “Mommy being naked on the internet.” I feel very bad for her. What price does one put on personal security, safety, and peace of mind? I don’t know.
Heaven forbid something like this would happen to anyone on this site or any of their friends or relatives; MALE or FEMALE. As far as Erin Andrews being a Z-lister/z-rater, what the heck does that have to do with anything??? Had it been Taylor Swift would it make a difference? How about a male movie star or male sports figure? What if someone did this to Peyton Manning? He has millions but it isn’t about the money; he would be a VICTIM; someone humiliated him and violated his privacy.
And Erin Andrews never lifting a finger again in her life??? Not going to happen I’m pretty sure; she’s a fighter, a survivor and I can’t see her sitting around on an over-stuffed couch eating bon-bons watching Maury Povich. I look forward to seeing her again on the sidelines at a sports event or on Dancing with the Stars as a co-host.
OK, I’m done. Have a great day brightlybob and everyone!
"What price does one put on personal security, safety, and peace of mind? I don’t know."
Exactly. I'm sure the jury had some guidelines when considering the judgement, but I would not want to be deliberating on the amount to award.
I was not saying that she would not lift a finger, as I'm sure she will continue to pursue her career, but rather that the amount awarded would allow that should she so choose, and in that it seems excessive to me.
Obviously we're all on the outside looking in, proffering our personal opinions on something that doesn't likely impact many of us directly, but does raise concerns among us travelers about hotel security, which was my main interest in the story.
To make this very clear, as I did on a similar thread, the Nashville Marriott did wrong by Erin. That had awful, dreadful consequences for her privacy. Marriott didn't do the peephole video but without thinking about the security of their guest they divulged her room number without clearing it with Erin and then placed this "fan" in the room next to her, again solely at his request without asking her. I wouldn't want them to do that to someone asking for me. A request like that should set alarm bells ringing at the hotel and it didn't. The Nashville Marriott was culpably negligent here and she deserves and is entitled to damages. She suffered no physical injury but it's undoubtably taken its toll and caused tremendous embarrassment. To the ordinary man/woman on the street, if this happened to them, let's put that at $100,000.
The next part of the damage assessment is the financial effect on the plaintiff caused by the defendants negligence. To take a more obvious situation a surgeon who can't work for a month following a car crash will be entitled to a bigger award for loss of earnings than a checkout assistant, because the surgeons wages for the month are significantly higher than the checkout assistant. Likewise if you ran over A-lister and highest paid female actress in the world, Jennifer Lawrence you'd expect to pay waaaaaay more damages for financial losses than a z-lister like, say, Erin Andrews. Not only that, but as the defence so clumsily pointed out, this made Erin a household name. She suffered no financial loss, indeed she may well command a far larger appearance fee now than before. She's certainly no longer a z-lister. She's known worldwide.
Furthermore, revolting though that it is, bearing in mind how little we pay our brave troops, police and hard working nurses, Jennifer Lawrence is paid multi-millions per film, $55 million could be her losses from just a couple of films. $55 million represents about 30 LIFETIMES of earnings for those troops/police/nurses. And $55 million represents probably 10 lifetimes of earnings for Erin. Compensation is meant to compensate. This cash-machine lotto jackpot award demeans justice and the word compensation.
I fully realise that Erin was the victim here, but as a result of her greed an unfortunate mistake has been turned into an award many times what she could expect to earn in her lifetime. My point remains. She is a poster child for every greedy, avaricious plaintiff in the compensation culture that is ruining our now risk averse, form filling, box ticking, jobsworth filled lives. We're all worse off by this award, because it'll encourage more avaricious plaintiffs egged on by their ambulance chasing lawyers. And I'm a lawyer. Not a defence lawyer either.
Erin got rich - fabulously-beyond-her-wildest-dreams, rich. Over 10 times what she could have earned in a lifetime rich. I don't expect her avarice to do her much good though since the Nashville Marriott will appeal and several more years down the line it will go before a judge who will award proper compensatory compensation. My view is $1,000,000 seems about right. It represents the fact that the video of her is considerably more interesting on the Internet than a similar one of an ordinary joe like me and compensates her well as it is few years earnings for Erin. And a further $1,000,000 from the actual perpetrator, though she'll be lucky to see any of it and will need to instruct lawyers to enforce which seeing as Nashville Marriotts negligence included allowing a financially impecunious perv to access her they should pay an additional $250,000 towards her continued legal fees to enforce against the perv. I suspect the judge on appeal will award far more than that, though. Although American jury awards are insane, I'm afraid they do infect judicial thinking on appeal so although $2.2 million seems right to me (and I suspect most lawyers outside the USA), I wouldn't be surprised to see a $10 million outcome. A lifetimes income for one mistake, Erin will never need to work again.
And and that's my 2 cents!
I agree with brightlybob here;
and I appreciate his courage for stating the politically incorrect sentiment here
but of course I don't know the case, the culture and deliberations in detail;
and I still, as an outsider, have some trust left in the "American system";
so I am sure there will be good arguments for this very big amount...
...but it seems,
But neither of those lawsuits ever went to a jury. Those were settlements reached by the families with Baltimore and NYC, respectively, with both cities trying to settle as quickly as possible because both deaths were the result of arrests (or transport post-arrest). Garner's family's lawsuit originally sought $75 million. HAD they gone to a jury, the awards would likely have been huge. The Gray and Garner families simply didn't have the financial resources to contest a long, drawn out courtroom battle. Andrews did.
I Did know that and also that juries many times will award large settlements when a company is involved vs an individual and just as often during appeal a judge will reduce it . Personnaly i also think it is excessive but time will tell what the final verdict will be and how many years before money is actually paid out
Being from Canada I observe your system with amazement. Our law society which licenses the lawyers has rules with respect to advertising. We have a few slick ads from one particular firm, but generally do not see much. I was in the states last week, and the billboards and the tv ads stand out to an outsider.
I enjoyed reading and participating in this branch of strings today on this subject. Now I will get back to my John Grisham novel.
I agree with Bob, here, in that the award is absurdly large. I'm not certain what would be an appropriate award, but I would find almost any 7 figure award within reason. It should be large enough to compensate her for her fears and humiliation and it should make the hotel take customer security seriously.
It should not be a ticket to lifetime riches, as the current award surely is!
Even if the jury award is not reduced eventually -- and I'm almost certain that it will be -- her legal team is going to be taking home a lot of it. They've been representing her now for 8 years, and there will likely be appeals ad nauseam by West End Hotel Partners, meaning more legal representation and further billing for services. In the end, Andrews will end up with only a fraction of whatever the award ends up being.
Quite the money grab on her part.
Was her safety compromised by Marriott staff, yes. Was it wrong for staff to show the video, yes it was reprehensible. Will the future of her career suffer, no.
She should receive some level of damages, but $75M is positively over the top. If it was any one of us ladies (a regular Jane), we would be laughed out of court. Sad state of affairs.