Erin Andrews

[PPC1052]

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.

If it's such a handicap to be pretty, then why do so many woman spend so much time and money trying to make themselves look pretty?

 

[PPC1052]

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.

And this is why there are runaway juries that render ridiculous verdicts, and why plaintiff's lawyers are in the lottery game.

 

[Kristin]

I think as a frequent hotel guest I should thank EA for pursuing this case and the jury for their verdict.
I have no doubt that my (as well as everyone else's) future stays will be a bit safer thanks to them.

As a female business traveler, I don't want hotels telling third parties which room I am staying in.

 

[RotorDude]

As a female business traveler, I don't want hotels telling third parties which room I am staying in.

Ditto as a male.

 

[Kristin]

I doubt it would be possible. Marriot national is out of the suit. So you are looking at recovering against the local franchisee. I doubt there is $22.5 million in coverage, and I doubt the who property is worth $22.5 million. Should she get the whole hotel for this? I don't think so. People have no concept of how much $55 million is.

If the hotel company really can't pay it, then will either negotiate a settlement that they can pay, or they will go through bankruptcy and that court will decide what they can afford. We don't know if the owner company owns one hotel or a hundred hotels.

 

[Kristin]

If it's such a handicap to be pretty, then why do so many woman spend so much time and money trying to make themselves look pretty?

Seriously? If you have to ask, you either have a physical problem or are gay.

 

[RotorDude]

And this is why there are runaway juries that render ridiculous verdicts, and why plaintiff's lawyers are in the lottery game.

And this is, unfortunately, the only way to get many businesses to consider their customers as more than just money-making pawns.

 

[Kristin]

And this is why there are runaway juries that render ridiculous verdicts, and why plaintiff's lawyers are in the lottery game.

Since you know that this is a runaway jury, and we know you wouldn't be talking out your a$$, then you must have sat through the trial. What evidence convinced you that the jury was in error?

 

[PPC1052]

You are looking at this solely from the perspective of compensating Andrews. The jury was probably looking at this from the perspective that the hotel, and perhaps the industry, needed to be more mindful of the security of the guests. This time it was only a video. Next time it could be a rape or murder.

I have seen no indication that there was a punitive damage award. The only thing relevant to compensatory damage awards is the amount of harm; not what might have happened.

 

[PPC1052]

Since you know that this is a runaway jury, and we know you wouldn't be talking out your a$$, then you must have sat through the trial. What evidence convinced you that the jury was in error?

The fact that the only thing that happened was she was filmed nude and it was posted on the internet. No doubt this is disturbing and worthy of compensation. But $55 million is ridiculous on its face and grossly disproportionate to any damages she could have sustained. She certainly didn't blackboard that much in specials. Her income increased after the incident. She didn't have close to that in medicals/psychological treatment. That number is so large, its evident that people (like you) don't even understand it. Hell, I have seen burned children completely disfigured for life not get that kind of award. It's crazy. $55 million is ridiculous on its face. There is no room for reasonable minds to differ on that.

And this is, unfortunately, the only way to get many businesses to consider their customers as more than just money-making pawns.

I agree that monetary damages do curb behavior, and they should. But the damages should also be reasonable. Not every mistake should result in immediate bankruptcy.

 

[PPC1052]

Seriously? If you have to ask, you either have a physical problem or are gay.

Ok. I really have no idea what you mean. Seriously.

 

[RotorDude]

I agree that monetary damages do curb behavior, and they should. But the damages should also be reasonable. Not every mistake should result in immediate bankruptcy.

When you are dealing with a corporation, a couple of mills is a slap on the wrist, "cost of doing business." To make a lasting impression on the entire industry, as I noted above, you need a bigger hammer.

 

[PPC1052]

When you are dealing with a corporation, a couple of mills is a slap on the wrist, "cost of doing business." To make a lasting impression on the entire industry, as I noted above, you need a bigger hammer.

Depends on the corporation. Not every corporation is a fortune 500 company. That you want to punish the corporation just because you assume it has lots of money is why there are run away juries. It is an assumption that is without a basis in fact.

 

[Kristin]

I have seen no indication that there was a punitive damage award. The only thing relevant to compensatory damage awards is the amount of harm; not what might have happened.

The harm is emotional distress and damage to reputation and future lost wages or opportunities. These are not quantifiable by accounting methods but our law allows the jury to come up with an amount. Assuming the defendant moved for a new trial, the judge can often the plaintiff a choice of accepting a lower amount or face a new trial. Of course, that can work the other way or the judge can just refuse to grant a new trial and stay silent. A judge that thinks the jury went off the rails will usually take the former course of action. That is how things worked in the infamous McDonald's coffee case. Everyone remembers the $3M award but it was little reported that the plaintiff only got about $650K.

 

[mscard88]

As a female business traveler, I don't want hotels telling third parties which room I am staying in.

Actually male or female, Kristin. When I was at the airlines checking into hotels on our overnights, the majority of them would not give out our information to include what room one was in. If the desk clerk handing us our keys mention out loud what room we were in, with people standing around the lobby, I'd politely ask for a different room and not broadcasting it to everyone. But I completely understand your concern being a woman, and agree.

 

[RotorDude]

That is how things worked in the infamous McDonald's coffee case. Everyone remembers the $3M award but it was little reported that the plaintiff only got about $650K.

For the record, on this one I absolutely agree that it was a runway justice system. She should have received nothing and paid the court costs if it were up to me.

 

[dtuuri]

I didn't sit in on the trial, so I don't know all the evidence that was produced. It has been reported that the hotel's systems and procedures let someone discover what room she was in and gave him a room next to her. I think that the point is that hotels shouldn't identify their guests or the room they are in to third parties, regardless of whether a celebrity is involved or not. That seems to have been the hook that got them. I know from experience that most hotels will not identify their guests, but some do. I am guessing that after this, very few will do so. That is a good thing. Whether this hotel should have been dinged in this case, I don't know, but as a defense lawyer, I could see this coming from the media reports of the trial.

Do you think the amount should be based on the popularity of the victim?

dtuuri

 

[PPC1052]

The harm is emotional distress and damage to reputation and future lost wages or opportunities. These are not quantifiable by accounting methods but our law allows the jury to come up with an amount. Assuming the defendant moved for a new trial, the judge can often the plaintiff a choice of accepting a lower amount or face a new trial. Of course, that can work the other way or the judge can just refuse to grant a new trial and stay silent. A judge that thinks the jury went off the rails will usually take the former course of action. That is how things worked in the infamous McDonald's coffee case. Everyone remembers the $3M award but it was little reported that the plaintiff only got about $650K.

And its usually misunderstood just how badly she was hurt. She had significant burns. I personally had no problem with that verdict after learning more about her physical injuries and the medical specials. But $55 million for this emotional harm is stupid crazy. I am shocked you don't see it. She continues to have a very productive and lucrative career. This simply didn't cause that much in damages. Only people who don't understand numbers could reach this verdict.

 

[RotorDude]

Depends on the corporation. Not every corporation is a fortune 500 company. That you want to punish the corporation just because you assume it has lots of money is why there are run away juries. It is an assumption that is without a basis in fact.

Sure, I am assuming that the jury was made aware of the finances of the defendants and I would expect the amount to hinge on that. Since they ruled the perp/perv was 51% responsible, it's clear they were targeting the corporation.

 

[Kristin]

The fact that the only thing that happened was she was filmed nude and it was posted on the internet. No doubt this is disturbing and worthy of compensation. But $55 million is ridiculous on its face and grossly disproportionate to any damages she could have sustained. She certainly didn't blackboard that much in specials. Her income increased after the incident. She didn't have close to that in medicals/psychological treatment. That number is so large, its evident that people (like you) don't even understand it. Hell, I have seen burned children completely disfigured for life not get that kind of award. It's crazy. $55 million is ridiculous on its face. There is no room for reasonable minds to differ on that.
I agree that monetary damages do curb behavior, and they should. But the damages should also be reasonable. Not every mistake should result in immediate bankruptcy.

Yup! This wasn't a case about special damages. These are general damages. That you can say with such certainty that the award was grossly excessive without seeing any of the evidence is interesting. If this was only about her emotional distress, perhaps it was excessive and perhaps it was not. Without hearing from the witnesses, I am not prepared to say, but my suspicion is that it was excessive, though only about $27M was aimed at the hotel. Since this was also about engendering some change in the hotel industry, the amount may have been valid. There are two more opportunities for the system to trim that back.

As a wise old attorney once said, trial is just one step in the negotiated settlement process.

 

[denverpilot]

I didn't sit in on the trial, so I don't know all the evidence that was produced. It has been reported that the hotel's systems and procedures let someone discover what room she was in and gave him a room next to her.

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

I think as a frequent hotel guest I should thank EA for pursuing this case and the jury for their verdict.
I have no doubt that my (as well as everyone else's) future stays will be a bit safer thanks to them.

You'd be flat wrong then. Unless "a bit" means "not statistically significant in any way". Not a single hotel will change a single procedure related to what this hotel did other than maybe remove display phones from their buildings and that will take a decade.

Most phone vendors aren't going to respond to a request to change the software for months if not years. And that's IF the system is upgradeable.

The good news is, most hotels aren't high end enough to even have display phones. But those that do, haven't made any changes and won't for a long time.

The best they can do, once their insurance underwriter requires it, will be to restrict direct room to room dialing.

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.

I doubt it would be possible. Marriot national is out of the suit. So you are looking at recovering against the local franchisee. I doubt there is $22.5 million in coverage, and I doubt the who property is worth $22.5 million. Should she get the whole hotel for this? I don't think so. People have no concept of how much $55 million is.

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.

As a female business traveler, I don't want hotels telling third parties which room I am staying in.

Ditto as a male.

They didn't. You didn't read how it happened.

Their phone system leaked the room information.

The stalker then watched for the cleaning crew to see when the room next door was vacated and then made a request for that specific room.

There was no correlation between what he asked for and who was next door, ever.

$50 to a bellhop who's hard up to pay his dealer or bookie will get you the same information at any hotel high end or low, anywhere in the U.S.

The case makes for great security theater.

 

[PPC1052]

Sure, I am assuming that the jury was made aware of the finances of the defendants and I would expect the amount to hinge on that.

That's a false assumption. It wouldn't come in for purposes of determining compensatory damages. It's irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the harm actually sustained. Evidence of finances probably comes in if there is a legitimate punitive damages claim. But again, I have seen no indication this verdict included punitive damages. Everything I have seen indicates that they reached a verdict of $55 million, and apportioned fault. You wouldn't apportion fault for a punitive damages award.

 

[PPC1052]

Since this was also about engendering some change in the hotel industry, the amount may have been valid.

Come on. You know better than that. It wasn't about change in the hotel industry. It was about how much damage she actually sustained. That's torts 101 and you know it. What are you, some plaintiff's lawyer? (And yes, I am hurling the worst insult I know of.)

 

[Kristin]

And its usually misunderstood just how badly she was hurt. She had significant burns. I personally had no problem with that verdict after learning more about her physical injuries and the medical specials. But $55 million for this emotional harm is stupid crazy. I am shocked you don't see it. She continues to have a very productive and lucrative career. This simply didn't cause that much in damages. Only people who don't understand numbers could reach this verdict.

So you thought the McDonald's verdict was bogus, but then you learned more and decided it was justifiable after all. Do you think something similar could happen here?

 

[RotorDude]

They didn't. You didn't read how it happened.
Their phone system leaked the room information.

If my hotel has a leak in any system, esp. one that relates to my security as a guest, I'd like it fixed ASAP. If not, I'd expect them to pay big time.
This is (to a large extent) what this case is about.

 

[Kristin]

Sure, I am assuming that the jury was made aware of the finances of the defendants and I would expect the amount to hinge on that. Since they ruled the perp/perv was 51% responsible, it's clear they were targeting the corporation.

Actually, the wealth of the defendant is generally inadmissible during the underlying trial. The jury could only guess at how much money or insurance was behind the two corporate defendants. The jury probably apportioned the blame between the ownership company and the management company. Any such apportionment has not been reported.

 

[PPC1052]

So you thought the McDonald's verdict was bogus, but then you learned more and decided it was justifiable after all. Do you think something similar could happen here?

No, and no.

 

[RotorDude]

That's a false assumption. It wouldn't come in for purposes of determining compensatory damages. It's irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the harm actually sustained. Evidence of finances probably comes in if there is a legitimate punitive damages claim. But again, I have seen no indication this verdict included punitive damages. Everything I have seen indicates that they reached a verdict of $55 million, and apportioned fault. You wouldn't apportion fault for a punitive damages award.

It may be irrelevant to a judge or lawyer, but not to a juror. And even if finances were not presented to them, they would have weighed them in their mind (based on a guess if no hard data). In any case, not having been privy to their deliberations, there is no reason for me to doubt that they did a fair job in assessing damage and award.

 

[RotorDude]

Actually, the wealth of the defendant is generally inadmissible during the underlying trial. The jury could only guess at how much money or insurance was behind the two corporate defendants. The jury probably apportioned the blame between the ownership company and the management company. Any such apportionment has not been reported.

As I mentioned above, even if the jury heard no direct evidence about the defendants' finances, they would have just made an educated guess.

 

[PPC1052]

It may be irrelevant to a judge or lawyer, but not to a juror. And even if finances were not presented to them, they would have weighed them in their mind (based on a guess if no hard data). In any case, not having been privy to their deliberations, there is no reason for me to doubt that they did a fair job in assessing damage and award.

Your statements are incongruous. You think they considered wealth, which they are instructed not to do, and they would have only their mental ruminations and no hard evidence on this issue, but you think that their deliberations were fair. Again, this is why we have run away juries.

 

[PPC1052]

As I mentioned above, even if the jury heard no direct evidence about the defendants' finances, they would have just made an educated guess.

And that is how they came up with a ridiculous $55 million verdict.

 

[Kristin]

Come on. You know better than that. It wasn't about change in the hotel industry. It was about how much damage she actually sustained. That's torts 101 and you know it. What are you, some plaintiff's lawyer? (And yes, I am hurling the worst insult I know of.)

Having tried cases, I know something about how juries operate in our system. It has its flaws. General damages are squishy. There is no way to quantify them beyond what a jury decides and then see how the rest of the process works to hopefully trim it to reality. i don't know what is a reasonable reality as I heard zero of the evidence, as did you. Actually, I was a dozen years as a defense dog. Juries have been enraged me and amazed me. I am not saying that the amount was correct, I just refuse to adopt your certainty while in ignorance. You have no such problem with ignorant certainty. Lets see if the judge or the appellate courts don't hack this down a bit.

 

[denverpilot]

If my hotel has a leak in any system, esp. one that relates to my security as a guest, I'd like it fixed ASAP. If not, I'd expect them to pay big time.
This is (to a large extent) what this case is about.

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.

 

[RotorDude]

Your statements are incongruous. You think they considered wealth, which they are instructed not to do, and they would have only their mental ruminations and no hard evidence on this issue, but you think that their deliberations were fair. Again, this is why we have run away juries.

You seem to equate "fairness" with following the legal instructions to the letter. As I noted above, I completely disagree with the McDo coffee verdict, and would have tossed it out as frivolous in the first place, yet that jury awarded a huge sum, even if later reduced.
I personally consider that "fairness" in that case should have resulted in the plaintiff getting nothing and paying court costs, regardless of any instructions. As I see it, the legal process is just an imperfect tool that hopefully leads society towards improvements, and juries are counted upon to use their common sense, with the legal process as a guide.

 

[PPC1052]

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.

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.

 

[RotorDude]

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.

I disagree. I do agree that the money involved is pocket change for Marriott, but I think the actual "hammer" won't be the money itself, but the associated publicity, which could cause some customers to go elsewhere. That shows up as X% lower income, and that gets noticed.

 

[PPC1052]

You seem to equate "fairness" with following the legal instructions to the letter.

On this particular issue, yes, yes I do. Compensatory damage should only be granted for actual harm suffered, and it should not be based on some "educated" guess as to how wealthy the defendant may or may not be.

 

[RotorDude]

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.

As I noted above, it doesn't really matter. The case was effectively, in the jurors and public's mind, about the brand. And it is the brand that will take the hit marketing wise, and this will teach them and others to take guest security seriously in future. That's what this case is about, and I am sure that was the jury's thinking.

 

[PPC1052]

As I noted above, it doesn't really matter. The case was effectively, in the jurors and public's mind, about the brand. And it is the brand that will take the hit marketing wise, and this will teach them and others to take guest security seriously in future. That's what this case is about, and I am sure that was the jury's thinking.

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

 

[RotorDude]

On this particular issue, yes, yes I do. Compensatory damage should only be granted for actual harm suffered, and it should not be based on some "educated" guess as to how wealthy the defendant may or may not be.

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