Erin Andrews

Gerhardt

Gerhardt

En-Route
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
4,534
Display Name
Display name:
Gerhardt
$55M? Please. Yeah, she should get all the money the guy has and a lot of money from the hotel. But really, $55M?
 
Yeah, $55M. Her **** aren't even that great.
 
I haven't seen the numbers. Was that $55M all damages or did it include punitive?
 
Matthew said:
I haven't seen the numbers. Was that $55M all damages or did it include punitive?
Click to expand...

I'm curious on that one too, because public figures usually have to show actual damages. What contract did she lose?
 
denverpilot said:
I'm curious on that one too, because public figures usually have to show actual damages. What contract did she lose?
Click to expand...
Public figures are entitled to emotional distress damages like anyone else. The only area of the law that differs for a celebrity is in libel and slander, especially politicians in recognition of the typically mudslinging involved in campaigns.

The hotel company is only on the hook for 49% of the verdict. However, this is likely to be reduced on appeal or a settlement negotiated for a lower amount. Then once costs are taken off the top, which could easily be $500K or more, and the attorneys take a third, I would not be surprised if she ended up with maybe $10M or so. The jerk off doesn't have anything so there isn't anything much to get there.
 
Its not even that good of a video...

Worth maybe $1M, tops.
 
I am still wondering why this case didn't settle. This was going to be a tough win for the defendant and an expensive trial. One side or the other was being unreasonable or delusional, or both.
 
SkyHog said:
Its not even that good of a video...

Worth maybe $1M, tops.
Click to expand...

In what way is the quality of the video is relevant to the horror of having those videos out there for everyone?

It would be interesting to know the composition of the jury and what tactics the plaintiff's attorneys used to keep d!ck head males off the jury who think women were put on the earth to satisfy their urges, hence would only judge Andrews on the pornographic qualities in the videos and think that she should be grateful for the publicity.
 
Kristin said:
In what way is the quality of the video is relevant to the horror of having those videos out there for everyone?

It would be interesting to know the composition of the jury and what tactics the plaintiff's attorneys used to keep d!ck head males off the jury who think women were put on the earth to satisfy their urges, hence would only judge Andrews on the pornographic qualities in the videos and think that she should be grateful for the publicity.
Click to expand...

The reports were that the jury was hugging and getting photo ops with Ms Andrews after the verdict. Can't say it was much of an unbiased jury if that's the case.

The quality is relevant because you couldn't even tell it was her, and the "horror" was over-imagined.

I'm not saying what the guy did was OK, or should be condoned, but when you have to say, "this is a video of so and so" because no one would know who it was otherwise, $55M is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
The reports were that the jury was hugging and getting photo ops with Ms Andrews after the verdict. Can't say it was much of an unbiased jury if that's the case.

The quality is relevant because you couldn't even tell it was her, and the "horror" was over-imagined.
Click to expand...

In my experience, that is pretty common when the plaintiff is successful in connecting with the jury during trial. It is a sad reality of humanity that an attractive plaintiff can more easily get the juries sympathies and then the plaintiff is halfway home to a big payday. Whether there was any bias before trial hasn't been revealed. But the jury will identify with the side they pick to be the winners.
 
Should have included the times or whatever major paper ran images from the illegal video too.
 
Kristin said:
In what way is the quality of the video is relevant to the horror of having those videos out there for everyone?

It would be interesting to know the composition of the jury and what tactics the plaintiff's attorneys used to keep d!ck head males off the jury who think women were put on the earth to satisfy their urges, hence would only judge Andrews on the pornographic qualities in the videos and think that she should be grateful for the publicity.
Click to expand...
Lets put it this way - nothing happens in the video except her staring in the mirror, curling her hair, and posing for herself. She doesn't "do" anything, and there's nothing that even really says it is her, except her admitting it was. Its not an embarrassing video, unless she is embarrassed that when she strips, she becomes incredibly boring.

Her image is not tarnished.

We are so crazy these days about remaining "sensitive" to everything. What you've got is a video that may, or may not be a person we may, or may not have seen on TV, and she is standing there doing something incredibly boring for about 5 minutes.

Was it wrong? Yes. And the photographer should be in jail for a long time for doing so. Was Marriott wrong because they didn't call EA and let her know that someone asked to stay next to her? Probably, but not to the level of requiring a negligence payout.

Is EA due some money for the "pain and suffering" she has endured? Probably not, or certainly not $55M worth. The only one that should be paying a penalty here is the photographer, but she chose to go down the dirty money route and sue Marriott.
 
Humphrey said:
I think this judgement was good... They assigned 51% of the blame to him but of course they will never collect $22.5 million from him. They will clean him out and he deserves that. I feel no pity for him. As for the hotel, them paying out about $22.5 million will not be impossible. This large judgment makes news and will ensure that other hotels take measures to prevent something like this happening. Those of you who feel sorry for the dude... think about some scumball doing this to your sister or mother, or maybe to you. EdFred, you say her **** are not so great well I bet yours are a whole lot less great and you would probably squeal the loudest is some scuzzball did that to you. Luckily for you nobody would care to see a video of you... :D
Click to expand...
I don't feel bad for the dude. He's an idiot and deserves to be jailed for a long time for violating her privacy. He's no better (or worse, for that matter) than the pig that drills a hole in the shower wall to watch people.

But because Marriott has a lot of money does mean they were a valid target.
 
Humphrey said:
I think this judgement was good... They assigned 51% of the blame to him but of course they will never collect $22.5 million from him. They will clean him out and he deserves that. I feel no pity for him. As for the hotel, them paying out about $22.5 million will not be impossible. This large judgment makes news and will ensure that other hotels take measures to prevent something like this happening. Those of you who feel sorry for the dude... think about some scumball doing this to your sister or mother, or maybe to you. EdFred, you say her tits are not so great well I bet yours are a whole lot less great and you would probably squeal the loudest is some scuzzball did that to you. Luckily for you nobody would care to see a video of you... :D
Click to expand...

Personally I couldn't care less if someone saw me naked in a hotel or not. I disagree with the hotel being at fault when the guy used a hacksaw to create the opening to take the video. It's like the carburetor company being sued successfully when a pilot augers it in with the engine still making full power. I bet you're OK with decisions like that as well.
 
EdFred said:
The reports were that the jury was hugging and getting photo ops with Ms Andrews after the verdict. Can't say it was much of an unbiased jury if that's the case.

The quality is relevant because you couldn't even tell it was her, and the "horror" was over-imagined.

I'm not saying what the guy did was OK, or should be condoned, but when you have to say, "this is a video of so and so" because no one would know who it was otherwise, $55M is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

She must have had a really good attorney to convince the jurors that someone might want to see their fat asses naked -- and would go out of their way to figure out what room was next door to them on their next trip to a 10,000 room hotel in Vegas to stuff themselves at the buffet. LOL...
 
ifly4fun said:
Should have included the times or whatever major paper ran images from the illegal video too.
Click to expand...

I don't think any major news paper printed her nude photos. Did you see any in the NYT, Washington Post, Fox? Internet service providers are pretty much immune unless they posted themselves. Congress has immunized websites, like this one, from illegal stuff that others post on their site without their knowledge or permission. As it needs to be.
 
My take on this was that the hotel gave out her room info to this guy. He asked if she was staying there, they said yes. He asked what room she was in and if he could have an adjoining room, they did it.

I didn't pay that much attention to the peephole deal, he said he rigged the door peephole so that he could hold his cellphone up to it and record. I wonder if he did that on a door in an adjoining room vs standing out in the hallway?

Either way, the front desk certainly should have had some better discretion. There have been times I've been checking into a hotel and there was a single woman in line. The desk clerk said something like, "Here you are, you are in room #xxx, down that hall and third door on the right." At least one time I heard the woman tell the clerk to give her a different room and not make a public announcement about it.
 
SkyHog said:
Lets put it this way - nothing happens in the video except her staring in the mirror, curling her hair, and posing for herself. She doesn't "do" anything, and there's nothing that even really says it is her, except her admitting it was. Its not an embarrassing video, unless she is embarrassed that when she strips, she becomes incredibly boring.

Her image is not tarnished.

We are so crazy these days about remaining "sensitive" to everything. What you've got is a video that may, or may not be a person we may, or may not have seen on TV, and she is standing there doing something incredibly boring for about 5 minutes.

Was it wrong? Yes. And the photographer should be in jail for a long time for doing so. Was Marriott wrong because they didn't call EA and let her know that someone asked to stay next to her? Probably, but not to the level of requiring a negligence payout.
.
Is EA due some money for the "pain and suffering" she has endured? Probably not, or certainly not $55M worth. The only one that should be paying a penalty here is the photographer, but she chose to go down the dirty money route and sue Marriott.
Click to expand...

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.
 
denverpilot said:
She must have had a really good attorney to convince the jurors that someone might want to see their fat asses naked -- and would go out of their way to figure out what room was next door to them on their next trip to a 10,000 room hotel in Vegas to stuff themselves at the buffet. LOL...
Click to expand...

Not difficult at all. You needed a combination of females and men likely to feel protective. That is why the testimony from the parent of EA, I am guessing. The defense had the deck stacked against them, but they did themselves no favors by trying to suggest that it helped her career. When you boat is leaking, it is not a good idea knock more holes in it, hoping the water will drain out.
 
Stewartb said:
You guys have entirely too much time to worry about other people's business.
Click to expand...

It's in a public court... they didn't choose to handle it privately. Which pretty much means one lawyer screwed up somewhere... and offered the wrong amount of money at the negotiation table.
 
Bill Jennings said:
The woman has professional pictures taken like this:

e85cce519b223f112271ea3333f2a283.jpg

Yet a nude video ruined her life and carrier? Please.

Irony: A already well off woman wins $55M when no one is injured or killed, yet when a breadwinner is killed in a car accident the family will be hard pressed to get even $1M out of the insurance company.
Click to expand...

If that is indeed a picture of EA, and not some photoshopped creation of the internet, you have a point, though posing is one thing and having someone sneak video in a private moment is another. I am guessing that most males would not be all that happy to be videoed nude, posted on the internet, and then having social media and their coworkers rating their attributes or lack thereof. That might be a bit stressful even for alpha male types. It is exponentially worse for women.
 
denverpilot said:
It's in a public court... they didn't choose to handle it privately. Which pretty much means one lawyer screwed up somewhere... and offered the wrong amount of money at the negotiation table.
Click to expand...

Not just that, but when she asked for $75M and talked to the press about it I don't think she wanted it kept private.
 
Kristin said:
I am guessing that most males would not be all that happy to be videoed nude, posted on the internet, and then having social media and their coworkers rating their attributes or lack thereof. That might be a bit stressful even for alpha male types. It is exponentially worse for women.
Click to expand...

You have a hostile tone. I don't see where this is a male/female issue. And certainly would not be worse for a woman than a man. That's crazy talk that I have no idea where it's coming from. Not one guy here is saying the scumbag who did it shouldn't be locked away forever and lose all his money. And I'm certainly not defending the hotel. But $55M is absurd. Like someone else said, sole breadwinners of families can be recklessly killed and the families frequently get much less than $1M.
 
How one person is affected by such a violation can be quite different from how another might be. Up to the court to determine what damages are reasonable, not a bunch of yahoos on the internet. That's how its supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't sure of the details, but according to this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oom-ESPN-presenter-hacking-peephole-door.html

the guy found out what room she was staying in when he called the front desk from a house phone and asked to be connected to her room. When the call went through, her room number showed up on the display. He then walked to her room, noticed a maid cleaning out the room next to hers because a guest had just checked out, and asked the front desk if he could have that room. He waited until she was gone, went into the hallway and doctored the peephole. He listened for her to finish her shower, went back into the hallway and started recording.
 
Kristin said:
That might be a bit stressful even for alpha male types. It is exponentially worse for women.
Click to expand...


No doubt she deserved some compensation, but $55M seems excessive to me, especially when no one was physically harmed or killed.
 
I foresee insurance companies demanding covered peep holes of hotels in the near future. Hahaha.
 
Gerhardt said:
You have a hostile tone. I don't see where this is a male/female issue. And certainly would not be worse for a woman than a man. That's crazy talk that I have no idea where it's coming from. Not one guy here is saying the scumbag who did it shouldn't be locked away forever and lose all his money. And I'm certainly not defending the hotel. But $55M is absurd. Like someone else said, sole breadwinners of families can be recklessly killed and the families frequently get much less than $1M.
Click to expand...

I am sure that you often see disagreement from a woman as disagreeable, perhaps even hostile. I do detect a certain lack of any serious attempt to see how this might be a different experience for a woman who is trying to succeed in a very male dominated world. If you wish to characterize that as hostile, be my guest. But own your emotions. They are entirely yours.

It is interesting that Hulk Hogan was recently testifying in a trial about a video taken of him in a compromising position and posted to the internet. He might have a slightly different view that he once might have held.
 
I look forward to a video of me being posted on the Internet. It might better my chances of meeting someone.
 
Bill Jennings said:
No doubt she deserved some compensation, but $55M seems excessive to me, especially when no one was physically harmed or killed.
Click to expand...

Maybe! I didn't sit in the courtroom and listen to all the evidence. Did you? There may be a large portion of that award that was meant as punishment to the hotel. I can't say that there isn't any circumstance where a jury shouldn't award more than the plaintiff actually deserves, in order to get the attention of the defendant or perhaps the whole industry. I don't know if that was appropriate here, but there are certainly cases where it is.
 
Hotels don't have the best staff to work with. I wonder what mariotts manuals to the franchisees say about maintaining the security of their guests.
 
EdFred said:
I look forward to a video of me being posted on the Internet. It might better my chances of meeting someone.
Click to expand...

You likely have a smartphone or a camera. You can star in your own show and post it. Maybe you will meet someone. :D
 
SkyHog said:
I thought feminism and equality had rid us of these types of opinions...
Click to expand...

Equality has yet to arrive and women as still treated vastly differently than men. There is some unfairness on both sides, to be sure. Men still grade women heavily on how they look and lots of women grade men on their size. The size of the wallet that is.
 
Bill Jennings said:
No doubt she deserved some compensation, but $55M seems excessive to me, especially when no one was physically harmed or killed.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
From my perspective the issue is not how much money she'll pocket herself (likely a tiny fraction of that amount), but how this verdict will affect society, specifically future hotel owners and their guests.
When someone pays for a room at an upscale hotel, they expect privacy and security. For the hotel to freely give away your room number and let strangers take the room next to you on demand is unacceptable. So how do we change it? Make more laws? No, let money talk.
And when you are dealing with a large corporation, a few mills is pocket change. To make a lasting impression and drive home the point, you need a bigger hammer. That's what the jury voted for, and I fully agree with them.
 
EdFred said:
I look forward to a video of me being posted on the Internet. It might better my chances of meeting someone.
Click to expand...

Probably. I don't think that would help me any though.
 
weilke said:
Hotels don't have the best staff to work with. I wonder what mariotts manuals to the franchisees say about maintaining the security of their guests.
Click to expand...

Marriott was a big loser in this trial, even though they were not a defendant. This did not help the Marriott brand one little bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top