Erin Andrews

[RotorDude]

Ugg. More soft thinking. Let's tag one defendant because we can't be bothered to keep separate entities straight in our mind.

Not "soft thinking", but what the jury system with its "common sense" approach is all about. If what society wanted were a strict legal algorithm, they'd dispense with jury trials. I know juries are "trier of fact", but clearly "fact" is a very broad umbrella.

 

[PPC1052]

And in the part you omitted I said,
"juries are counted upon to use their common sense, with the legal process as a guide."

You already said that the jury made an educated guess about wealth in making their verdict-- a statement with which I agree (except for the word "educated"). That is at odds with using "common sense" and the "legal process" as a guide.

 

[Kristin]

Already covered above. Did you read it? No need to sit on a jury, court records are public.

This. And people also don't know that the law requires "public figures" show ACTUAL damages in libel cases. This lawsuit may still be tossed on appeal. The lower court has done their job making it LOOK like the popular rich girl got paid. If none of this is punitive, the dollar amount will fall to barely covering the legal costs plus a new car for her by the time an appellate judge is asked to review the award against actual proven damages.

Court records are public, but not online. Did you go to the courthouse in Tennessee to read it? I am guessing not. I am guessing you are not an attorney. This isn't a libel cause, so Andrews is not limited to ACTUAL damages. And in our law, ACTUAL damages is not a legal term, however, general damages and special damages are legal terms of art. Special damages are those that are quantifiable using analytical techniques. General damages are those that are not, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, etc. Juries get to decide the latter, based on their gut instinct after having heard the evidence. Sometimes they get emotionally carried away. That may have happened here, but I can't say that with certainty not having heard the testimony. There are other checks in the system for that. If it gets to an appellate level, that court will not disturb the juries finding unless they consider the amount grossly out of line. The term that some appellate courts use when doing so is to state that the amount "shocks the conscience of the court". The trial judge has the best shot to knock it down, assuming the defendants have moved for a new trial or judgment not withstanding the verdict. There maybe somewhat different procedures in Tennessee as I don't practice there and have never tried any case there.

 

[PPC1052]

Not "soft thinking", but what the jury system with its "common sense" approach is all about. If what society wanted were a strict legal algorithm, they'd dispense with jury trials. I know juries are "trier of fact", but clearly "fact" is a very broad umbrella.

Sigh. So make up what ever you want and just call it a "fact."

 

[RotorDude]

You already said that the jury made an educated guess about wealth in making their verdict-- a statement with which I agree (except for the word "educated"). That is at odds with using "common sense" and the "legal process" as a guide.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[RotorDude]

Sigh. So make up what ever you want and just call it a "fact."

Yes, and that's a fact of life.

 

[denverpilot]

Move the decimal point to understand this.

If you have $190,000 a year coming in and someone fines you $2750.

(Half of the $55 million since they were only 49% at fault whatever that means.)

It's not chump change, but it's not that significant either. They'll have to put off the BMW payment for two weeks.

 

[PPC1052]

Yes, and that's a fact of life.

I will be sure to add the following question to my list of voir dire questions: "Do any of you post on POA under the name RotorDude?" Now, if I could only convince the judge to strike you for cause.

 

[Kristin]

Don't worry. They won't. And if you bring a suit you aren't pretty enough to convince a jury you have $55M in damages. She won't get her $55M either. Not in the next ten years.

Meanwhile Mariott alone makes $250M a quarter in *profit* or so depending on how you account for it. Their total revenues for 2015 was nearly $1.9 Billion dollars.

Even as we are pointing out the jury awarded a completely ridiculous sum, they won't even sneeze at half of $55M. They pay $137M in interest payments on loans annually.

People do not understand numbers.

Mariott won't materially change a damned thing at any hotel for even $55M. They'd just sell one to pay that and pocket the change.

And their liability insurer is "buying" this dinner anyway. Business as usual. Lawyers made some nice coin though.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you seem to know so much that isn't true. You claim to know so much about this case, but you don't know that it isn't a libel case and you don't seem to know that Marriott International was dismissed from the case very early, once they showed that they had no responsibility for the security of their franchisees. The defendants at trial were the dirtbag, the hotel management company, and the owner of the hotel. It is likely the hotel management company that is likely to be on the hook for this. Even if the jury gave a percentage to the owner, I am guessing that there is probably an indemnity clause in the contract between the owner and the management company.

 

[Kristin]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Mariott (the one you are referring to) was not a defendant. It was just the franchisee that got hit with $22.5 million.

You are attributing a quote to me that I did not make.

 

[PPC1052]

Move the decimal point to understand this.

If you have $190,000 a year coming in and someone fines you $2750.

(Half of the $55 million since they were only 49% at fault whatever that means.)

It's not chump change, but it's not that significant either. They'll have to put off the BMW payment for two weeks.

First, I doubt you have the numbers for the franchisee who was the actual defendant, rather than the Marriott Corp., but even so, this ignores costs of doing business. I guarantee you $26.95 million after tax dollars ain't chump change to the franchisee.

 

[RotorDude]

I will be sure to add the following question to my list of voir dire questions: "Do any of you post on POA under the name RotorDude?" Now, if I could only convince the judge to strike you for cause.

I'd be more than happy to identify myself.
Might be easier than sending this letter.

 

[PPC1052]

You are attributing a quote to me that I did not make.

You are attributing to me that which the compute did. But thanks for bring that to my attention. I will correct it anyway.

 

[denverpilot]

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you seem to know so much that isn't true. You claim to know so much about this case, but you don't know that it isn't a libel case and you don't seem to know that Marriott International was dismissed from the case very early, once they showed that they had no responsibility for the security of their franchisees. The defendants at trial were the dirtbag, the hotel management company, and the owner of the hotel. It is likely the hotel management company that is likely to be on the hook for this. Even if the jury gave a percentage to the owner, I am guessing that there is probably an indemnity clause in the contract between the owner and the management company.

Nifty. So basically the management company, who probably installed the exact phone system required to be a Mariott franchisee, and who never had enough information to realize the thing leaked a room number to ANOTHER GUEST (not an outside caller), is likely to be run out of business and bankrupted for the actions of a single smart stalker who carefully planned and executed a crime.

But you do help make my point that not a single large hotel chain will be changing any "procedures" surrounding security. Looks like Mariott did an excellent job of shielding themselves from the standard level of crime that takes place in hotels the world over, too. Good job, Mariott staff lawyers! Shareholders will be pleased.

Here's hoping the poor management company has enough insurance to cover the penalty, once it's knocked down to something sane on appeal. Probably raise the rates of a hotel room about $.02 nationally with no significant statistical change in crime levels in hotels. Certainly won't affect a determined stalker in the slightest at any hotel either.

And yay. Cinderella who slaved at ESPN talking about sports, gets a nice check too. Aww. The perfect princess story. That's all the jury wanted for her. I'm sure she's a very nice person. And probably knows not to stand in the hallway outside of the bathroom in front of the door naked anymore without covering the peep hole, and that peep holes work both directions... amazing, SCIENCE! Which is, of course, the true moral of the story.

 

[weilke]

The only other procedural change that could be made would be to never transfer any call to a patron by name. That's unlikely to be done, but if it is, the ultimate solution is to completely block inbound phone calls in rooms and at that point you might as well remove the phones altogether.

The hotels make (made) their money on ridiculously overpriced outbound long-distance calls from the room phones. Restricting inbound calls or room to room would make no difference to the hotels bottom line.

The other procedural change is what good hotels do already: If you call with a name and request to be connected, they tell you that they can't confirm whether that guest is staying with them but offer to take a message.

 

[denverpilot]

The other procedural change is what good hotels do already: If you call with a name and request to be connected, they tell you that they can't confirm whether that guest is staying with them but offer to take a message.

And if the person isn't there at the hotel they still take a message? ROFLMAO... stupid.

 

[weilke]

And if the person isn't there at the hotel they still take a message? ROFLMAO... stupid.

What is stupid about it ? It's not like it costs them anything to record a message requesting a callback.

 

[denverpilot]

What is stupid about it ? It's not like it costs them anything to record a message requesting a callback.

The whole problem is identifying whether or not someone is STAYING AT THE HOTEL, not the part about whether they're present in their room right now.

(Although in this $55M case, the stalker already knew his prey was there, so it wasn't even part of the case...)

But if you're going for "security"...

Scenario 1: "We have no guest by that name."
Scenario 2: "I'll transfer you to voice mail."

Guess which one just let me know which hotel you're staying at?

(Folks in this thread really don't get that hotel "security" is an absolute joke, do they? Nor how security of a human "target" actually works... Nor for that matter, "How not to be a target"... here's a hint... don't be a TV personality.)

 

[denverpilot]

This number is not ridiculous. They know the peeping tom low life can't pay it. They had to assign 51% of the blame to him but they are really hitting the Mariott. For them, 49% of $55 million will hurt but won't kill them. Do they deserve it? Yes they do. This was just a video in this case but could have gone a lot worse. They SHOULD not have allowed one of their customers to be put into this situation. I fully and completely support this verdict. They're need to hurt a little and make sure this doesn't happen again.

Hadn't scrolled down to where the brilliant person corrected me (mostly because I don't care... though... because I laugh at the idea of "hotel security" a priori...) and mentioned that Mariott was completely dismissed from the case as a defendant, when you hit reply, had you?

Heh... this is fun. I really like the kiddies on the playground who think hotels are "safe". Should look up cruise lines sometime if you really want some fun... hotels are always bucking to catch up with the cruise industry's levels of "safety"...

 

[weilke]

Scenario 1: "We have no guest by that name."
Scenario 2: "I'll transfer you to voice mail."

Guess which one just let me know which hotel you're staying at?

It is so much easier to argue with your own straw-man.

They don't comment at all if you ask whether a guest is staying with them. They just offer to take a message.

 

[EdFred]

The lawsuit was not against Mariott. It was against the franchisee.

 

[PPC1052]

Do they deserve it? Yes they do. This was just a video in this case but could have gone a lot worse.

No. You don't get to recover if you are in a car accident for damages as if you were paralyzed just bcause it might have happened. You recover for damages you actually sustained.

 

[weilke]

The lawsuit was not against Mariott. It was against the franchisee.

It will still cause Mariott and the other chains to change their procedures.

If lawsuits didn't change corporate behavior, we wouldn't have had any brake transmission interlocks on cars prior to 2006.

 

[denverpilot]

They don't comment at all if you ask whether a guest is staying with them. They just offer to take a message.

And that's what I said was stupid. Why would you "take messages" for any name if they're not staying there?

But I do think I have a new fun thing to do on boring nights... I think I'll call a fancy hotel with this policy and leave messages for all the members of Congress by name. You never know, I might hit the jackpot.

No "straw-man" about it. It's retarded. We all have cell phones. Especially at the "high end" hotels, RotorGuy says are the only ones that should provide personal privacy. ROFL...

Hotel. Security. That's a really funny pair of words, right there... Give me $100 in $20 bills, a shave, a suit, and a smile, and maybe a clip board, I'll be outside your door, once I figure out which hotel you're staying at.

Social engineering a hotel to find which room someone is in, is kiddy play in the Security world. They have this desire to be customer serving, you see... and it can be used against them, VERY easily.

 

[Kristin]

Nifty. So basically the management company, who probably installed the exact phone system required to be a Mariott franchisee, and who never had enough information to realize the thing leaked a room number to ANOTHER GUEST (not an outside caller), is likely to be run out of business and bankrupted for the actions of a single smart stalker who carefully planned and executed a crime.

But you do help make my point that not a single large hotel chain will be changing any "procedures" surrounding security. Looks like Mariott did an excellent job of shielding themselves from the standard level of crime that takes place in hotels the world over, too. Good job, Mariott staff lawyers! Shareholders will be pleased.

Here's hoping the poor management company has enough insurance to cover the penalty, once it's knocked down to something sane on appeal. Probably raise the rates of a hotel room about $.02 nationally with no significant statistical change in crime levels in hotels. Certainly won't affect a determined stalker in the slightest at any hotel either.

And yay. Cinderella who slaved at ESPN talking about sports, gets a nice check too. Aww. The perfect princess story. That's all the jury wanted for her. I'm sure she's a very nice person. And probably knows not to stand in the hallway outside of the bathroom in front of the door naked anymore without covering the peep hole, and that peep holes work both directions... amazing, SCIENCE! Which is, of course, the true moral of the story.

Now you are creating a new set of nonexistent "facts". If Marriott had specified the phone system, they wouldn't likely have been dropped from the lawsuit. Your assumption that Marriott International will not make any additional requirements of its franchisees is mere speculation on your part. Given that the brand has taken a huge PR hit in this, your speculation seems counter-intuitive. Paradoxically, if the hotel industry is really as cavalier about this as you seem to think, then arguably the verdict was way too small.

Given the verdict and the publicity, especially the later, I would think that most hotel operators will give changing procedures some thought.

 

[EdFred]

It will still cause Mariott and the other chains to change their procedures.

If lawsuits didn't change corporate behavior, we wouldn't have had any brake transmission interlocks on cars prior to 2006.

Perhaps, but it doesn't "punish" Mariott. If there isn't a reduction on appeal, all that will be "won" is putting a bunch of hotel workers out of a job, and a franchisee to go bankrupt.

 

[denverpilot]

Now you are creating a new set of nonexistent "facts". If Marriott had specified the phone system, they wouldn't likely have been dropped from the lawsuit. Your assumption that Marriott International will not make any additional requirements of its franchisees is mere speculation on your part. Given that the brand has taken a huge PR hit in this, your speculation seems counter-intuitive. Paradoxically, if the hotel industry is really as cavalier about this as you seem to think, then arguably the verdict was way too small.

Given the verdict and the publicity, especially the later, I would think that most hotel operators will give changing procedures some thought.

We'll revive the thread in a year, and you'll be wrong. But good luck.

"Huge" PR hit? Judging by the number of people at my office who'd even heard about the case (1, me), and who knew who Erin Stevens was or what happened (0), I'd say no. Just internet fluff and 15 seconds if lucky on the nightly news. Forgotten next week by everybody, easy.

The first reaction of the first person here at the office was, "Why was she standing in the hall instead of drying off in the bathroom?" LOL...

So... no... nobody really cares.

And the industry is quite uninterested in security, overall. The good news is, almost nobody wants to see anyone's butt naked other than stalkers of low-level ESPN "nearly-nobody" sportscasters. And certainly wouldn't go through the effort the stalker did to actually get a photo.

But hotels actually having effective "security" against what the guy did? Puh-leeeze.

Somebody wants to find you in a hotel, they're going to find you. The good news is, you don't rate that much attention. The jury empathized because they actually think someone would go out of their way to find THEM, which is pretty hilarious...

 

[Kristin]

We'll revive the thread in a year, and you'll be wrong. But good luck.

"Huge" PR hit? Judging by the number of people at my office who'd even heard about the case (1, me), and who knew who Erin Stevens was or what happened (0), I'd say no. Just internet fluff and 15 seconds if lucky on the nightly news. Forgotten next week by everybody, easy.

The first reaction of the first person here at the office was, "Why was she standing in the hall instead of drying off in the bathroom?" LOL...

So... no... nobody really cares.

And the industry is quite uninterested in security, overall. The good news is, almost nobody wants to see anyone's butt naked other than stalkers of low-level ESPN "nearly-nobody" sportscasters. And certainly wouldn't go through the effort the stalker did to actually get a photo.

But hotels actually having effective "security" against what the guy did? Puh-leeeze.

Somebody wants to find you in a hotel, they're going to find you. The good news is, you don't rate that much attention. The jury empathized because they actually think someone would go out of their way to find THEM, which is pretty hilarious...

I guess the public statements made by Marriott International saying that they were not a defendant . . . had been exonerated . . . that the witness who admitting watching the video was not their employee . . . yada yada was made by some intern who happened to be related to Andrew. Sure! That happens.

You must have a strange fetish for strawmen.

That being said, I would like to live in your world of make-believe. In it, only bad things would happen to rich celebrities. No ex-husband stalking and killing their former wives; no jihadis killing people that no one ever heard of; no random shootings. It must be nice living in such a fantasy world.

In this world, it is not entirely unreasonable for the jury to put themselves in a position where they could be endangered due to lax hotel security. Anonymous folks, like the jurors, get harmed all the time. An innkeeper has had obligations to protect their guests going back many many centuries in English and American common law. Whether the innkeeper in this case was really negligent or whether the jury was overly swayed by Erin Andrew's celebrate, neither you nor I know, as neither of us has seen the evidence. Only one of us seems to care about that.

 

[weilke]

Perhaps, but it doesn't "punish" Mariott. If there isn't a reduction on appeal, all that will be "won" is putting a bunch of hotel workers out of a job, and a franchisee to go bankrupt.

I doubt anyone will go bankrupt. That particular franchisee or management company will pay a couple $$ more in their renewal for liability insurance and mariott franchise employees will have another power-point to click through during orientation.

 

[weilke]

And that's what I said was stupid. Why would you "take messages" for any name if they're not staying there?

Because it doesn't cost you a thing and you can do so without divulging information about the existence of a guest by that name.

 

[denverpilot]

I guess the public statements made by Marriott International saying that they were not a defendant . . . had been exonerated . . . that the witness who admitting watching the video was not their employee . . . yada yada was made by some intern who happened to be related to Andrew. Sure! That happens.

You must have a strange fetish for strawmen.

That being said, I would like to live in your world of make-believe. In it, only bad things would happen to rich celebrities. No ex-husband stalking and killing their former wives; no jihadis killing people that no one ever heard of; no random shootings. It must be nice living in such a fantasy world.

In this world, it is not entirely unreasonable for the jury to put themselves in a position where they could be endangered due to lax hotel security. Anonymous folks, like the jurors, get harmed all the time. An innkeeper has had obligations to protect their guests going back many many centuries in English and American common law. Whether the innkeeper in this case was really negligent or whether the jury was overly swayed by Erin Andrew's celebrate, neither you nor I know, as neither of us has seen the evidence. Only one of us seems to care about that.

You seem to have misconstrued something I said. I've been very clear that hotel security is nonexistent and you're saying I haven't.

The only person living in a fantasy is you, who believes that this case will change a single statistically significant thing about crimes committed in hotels. Or that $55M sends any sort of a message to an industry who's pulling down $1.9B annually at a single brand name.

The case has however done it's job. It made you believe you're "safer" in a hotel today than you were yesterday. The Mariott PR people approve of your newfound belief and thank you for it.

The evidence is not necessary. The penalty is a pimple on the butt of a flea at the dollar amounts the industry makes. They won't tell you this, but they have a budget for settling cases for non-celebrity patrons and they know how much crime costs them each year. It's baked into the price of the room. Probably even tied to a bonus for the head of Security.

If he or she can spend less than the cost of the new security feature they want to install, approved. If it's more money than that, denied. Paying the settlements is cheaper.

Like you said yourself, people are murdered in hotels all the time. Haven't seen any install cameras in all the hallways and pay armed guards to monitor them much, have we?

The case made a little ESPN girl rich, will drive a management company into the bankruptcy car wash if their insurance doesn't cover it all, they'll be up and operating under a different business name one minute after the old company files for the bankruptcy, and they'll wait and see how many pennies on the dollar the bankruptcy judge makes the company pay. Their employees will get new company logos on their name badges and that's about it.

You won't be any "safer" at any Marriott property than you are today. That's not a straw man. That's a fact.

 

[denverpilot]

I doubt anyone will go bankrupt. That particular franchisee or management company will pay a couple $$ more in their renewal for liability insurance and mariott franchise employees will have another power-point to click through during orientation.

Au contraire, it's an excellent time for bankruptcy so they can dump any debts and renegotiate pay scales with the staff to make a bigger profit.

Because it doesn't cost you a thing and you can do so without divulging information about the existence of a guest by that name.

It does cost something. In the days before PBX systems in hotels it cost an extra staff member or two per hotel to handle phone calls at the desk. The auto-attendant saved a non-insignificant dollar amount routing calls by touch tone to rooms in the pre-cell phone era. Now the room phones are mostly a quaint reminder of the past.

We had a hard time getting a vendor to come on-site to repair a phone system at a call center last year because the installation of a new system at a casino owned hotel was waaaaay more lucrative for the phone vendor than a repair.

A new system today, the absolute most important feature is automated wake up calls. That's a much bigger money saver for the hotelier today than any other feature on the system, and easily pays the exorbitant prices that hotel phone vendors charge for installs. My buddy in that biz owns a Cirrus. He's also not dumb enough to use display phones, that'd cut into his margin for no reason at all.

 

[Lindberg]

I am not sure I could have supported the amount awarded had I been on the jury, but then, I generally get thrown off before things get interesting. However, I have some sympathy for EA as I know how difficult it can be to be taken seriously in a male dominated world full of alpha-type males. She has one additional handicap that I didn't/don't have. She is very pretty so men almost always view her first with their little head and not their big one.

I don't see how her looks are a handicap. She has her job because of her looks. She may be good at her job (I have no idea), but she wouldn't have it if she was ugly. Plenty of brilliant ugly sports minds out there. None of them are sideline reporters. And she testified that she's had two new contracts since the video came out. Each was better than the previous.

There was nothing in the video that you wouldn't see if she'd showed up at a nude beach. I can understand that would be quite embarrassing if it wasn't your choice, but not $55 million embarrassing.

As for your comment about ******** males, there's nothing remotely pornographic (or even entertaining) in the video. It's really just satisfying a curiosity.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't see how her looks are a handicap. She has her job because of her looks.

I believe the point was that she is more of a target for male stalkers being good looking, thus the handicap.

 

[paflyer]

Yeah, $55M. Her **** aren't even that great.

They can be now.

 

[NoHeat]

People have no concept of how much $55 million is.

True. And isn't that a good reason to have appellate courts?

 

[denverpilot]

True. And isn't that a good reason to have appellate courts?

Or not having juries making up numbers for damages, but actually requiring proof of them.

 

[Kristin]

You seem to have misconstrued something I said. I've been very clear that hotel security is nonexistent and you're saying I haven't.

The only person living in a fantasy is you, who believes that this case will change a single statistically significant thing about crimes committed in hotels. Or that $55M sends any sort of a message to an industry who's pulling down $1.9B annually at a single brand name.

The case has however done it's job. It made you believe you're "safer" in a hotel today than you were yesterday. The Mariott PR people approve of your newfound belief and thank you for it.

The evidence is not necessary. The penalty is a pimple on the butt of a flea at the dollar amounts the industry makes. They won't tell you this, but they have a budget for settling cases for non-celebrity patrons and they know how much crime costs them each year. It's baked into the price of the room. Probably even tied to a bonus for the head of Security.

If he or she can spend less than the cost of the new security feature they want to install, approved. If it's more money than that, denied. Paying the settlements is cheaper.

Like you said yourself, people are murdered in hotels all the time. Haven't seen any install cameras in all the hallways and pay armed guards to monitor them much, have we?

The case made a little ESPN girl rich, will drive a management company into the bankruptcy car wash if their insurance doesn't cover it all, they'll be up and operating under a different business name one minute after the old company files for the bankruptcy, and they'll wait and see how many pennies on the dollar the bankruptcy judge makes the company pay. Their employees will get new company logos on their name badges and that's about it.

You won't be any "safer" at any Marriott property than you are today. That's not a straw man. That's a fact.

You have your belief system that is that companies don't notice larger awards against the industry and that they don't do any form of risk management because it is cheaper to pay claims than take precautions. Far be it for me to try to shake your faith. My experience in the world is more nuanced and less dogmatic and I most certainly see businesses in various industries take steps to lessen their exposure to law suits.

 

[Kristin]

Or not having juries making up numbers for damages, but actually requiring proof of them.

What kind of proof would you suggest for pain and suffering or emotional distress?

 

[Kristin]

I don't see how her looks are a handicap. She has her job because of her looks. She may be good at her job (I have no idea), but she wouldn't have it if she was ugly. Plenty of brilliant ugly sports minds out there. None of them are sideline reporters. And she testified that she's had two new contracts since the video came out. Each was better than the previous.

There was nothing in the video that you wouldn't see if she'd showed up at a nude beach. I can understand that would be quite embarrassing if it wasn't your choice, but not $55 million embarrassing.

As for your comment about ******** males, there's nothing remotely pornographic (or even entertaining) in the video. It's really just satisfying a curiosity.

Unless your job is strictly to be eye candy, there is a sweet spot between a woman looking unfortunate and too gorgeous to be treated seriously. That sweet spot would be more on the pretty side for someone on TV, less so for a woman trying to be taken seriously in a professional capacity. Andrews' job is likely 2/3'rds to be eye candy which makes it especially tough to be taken seriously. Having nude pictures of yourself all over the internet does not help.