Erin Andrews

Kristin said:
What kind of proof would you suggest for pain and suffering or emotional distress?
Click to expand...

Zero. I do not find those awards to be valid under a properly run legal system. They're emotional and subjective and don't belong in a courtroom. Politicians create them to make cry-baby people feel better about the "unfairness of life".

You know? Those people living in a first world country who have more than at least 1000 other people on the planet. Clothes even. Such hardships an ESPN reporter endures in life! Amazing she can even get out of bed to face the day, all that fresh water, food, and private rooms in any city for the price of a steak dinner. Awful. My heart bleeds.

Emotional distress tied to money, doesn't meet the fair impartiality sold as a reason for a system of jurisprudence.

You're alive, someone saw your TaTas or if you're a guy, your giblets, and you're not losing any contracts from anyone? Ok...

We'll happily lock up the criminal and issue a mandate that the Internet sites hosting the video take them down since you didn't authorize your likeness to be published and you weren't in a public place. Unfortunately our jurisdiction stops at the border and the file was already copied overseas. You'll have to take that up with the laws and courts of other countries. The species has decided that an international computer network without any international law was a grrrrreat idea.

We'll toss in that Mariott will send you a lifetime supply of post it notes for use in covering the hole in the door you clearly saw when you entered the room and tell them to turn off room to room calling on their phone system until they fix the display problem.

Case closed.
 
denverpilot said:
Zero. I do not find those awards to be valid under a properly run legal system. They're emotional and subjective and don't belong in a courtroom. Politicians create them to make cry-baby people feel better about the "unfairness of life".

You know? Those people living in a first world country who have more than at least 1000 other people on the planet. Clothes even. Such hardships an ESPN reporter endures in life! Amazing she can even get out of bed to face the day, all that fresh water, food, and private rooms in any city for the price of a steak dinner. Awful. My heart bleeds.

Emotional distress tied to money, doesn't meet the fair impartiality sold as a reason for a system of jurisprudence.

You're alive, someone saw your TaTas or if you're a guy, your giblets, and you're not losing any contracts from anyone? Ok...

We'll happily lock up the criminal and issue a mandate that the Internet sites hosting the video take them down since you didn't authorize your likeness to be published and you weren't in a public place. Unfortunately our jurisdiction stops at the border and the file was already copied overseas. You'll have to take that up with the laws and courts of other countries. The species has decided that an international computer network without any international law was a grrrrreat idea.

We'll toss in that Mariott will send you a lifetime supply of post it notes for use in covering the hole in the door you clearly saw when you entered the room and tell them to turn off room to room calling on their phone system until they fix the display problem.

Case closed.
Click to expand...

I gotta wonder who sh** in your corn flakes. Every post I have ever seen from you, regardless of the subject, makes clear that you only look at the world through crud colored glasses. You are one bitter pill.
 
Kristin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. No sideline reporter is taken seriously. Not male nor female.

They're the B-team, and filler during field time outs. Unless they have some significant body of other writing work or a show of their own, it doesn't matter what they look like. Nobody remembers or even knows their names.

Reality check. It's not about gender.

"The coaches say Billy Bob twisted an ankle and will be back for the second half... Back to you in the booth..." is not serious sports reporting. It's just standing there looking good enough to not have anyone change the channel or go get a beer, and otherwise a job anybody can do.

They send the A-team down out of the booth to do the post-game interviews, too.

Sideline reporter taken seriously? Gimme a break. I've hung out with a lot of TV people and even they don't take themselves seriously.
 
Kristin said:
I gotta wonder who sh** in your corn flakes. Every post I have ever seen from you, regardless of the subject, makes clear that you only look at the world through crud colored glasses. You are one bitter pill.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You've not met me. I'm a very happy guy actually. And quite content.

I just don't ******** myself or others about reality.

A great many people really do enjoy the fantasies they have believed for sometimes a lifetime, though.

Stuff like, "A $55M settlement will make me safer in hotels in the future." when the chain pulls down $1.9B a year and the industry motto is "put butts in beds".

Having worked analyzing security for a significant portion of my living, it's quite a laughable statement.

Having spent way too much time skiing and fishing with old lawyers, the idea of an "impartial jury" I'd also rank up there with some really funny stuff.

Having worked and lived with the homeless for a short while, and befriending many who've done overseas disaster and daily relief work, the many "plights" of the whiny modern American suburbanite are absolutely hilarious.

I'll smile and crack a beer and we'll talk for hours about how freaking lucky we all are to be involved in aviation and flying and camping at OSH, or whatever, because all this silly crap this ESPN reporter is all "emotionally distressed" or whatever about, is total BS compared to what's really out there.

I believe it was my ground pounder Marine Vietnam Vet friend turned lawyer who said, "I don't give a **** what some lawyer pushes across the table at me and thinks he's going to scare me with, I was being shot at in a jungle in Southeast Asia when I was 18 and long before he was born. Haven't seen a piece of paper slid across a desk yet that could kill me before I finished taking my morning ****."

Can't say that I've been shot at, but I'm not particularly impressed by the "problems" most Americans think they face. Seen and done enough to know that nothing discussed thus far in this thread is any real damage to the reporter chick.

I love what you can do in America. It's a freaking playground compared to most places. I loathe the busiwork and silliness of stuff like this case, though, and all because someone is too stupid to notice there's a freaking hole in their room door, or is embarrassed by being naked? LOL... Whatever.

Arguing with you about it and challenging your beliefs about the system, especially that goofy one you have about a major hotel chain suddenly giving a crap about anything related to real security...? That's just personal entertainment with the unlikely option that you'll figure it out. Few do. It's fun when people do have the light bulb turn on, though.

I'm fascinated by all the "special snowflakes" who think anyone even notices them, too. That jury really thinks pretty highly of themselves, hugging the plaintiff afterward like she survived some major ordeal? Hahaha. Funny funny stuff.

Scale and perspective. Mariott's leadership didn't lose a single hour of sleep over this one. They have lawyers on retainer and PR people on staff for that. But the ESPN girl probably ruined the day of a Mariott contractor who, like we've said, may or may not need the bankruptcy car wash and a new business name, and definitely will have to assign someone to make a new PowerPoint slide deck. The horrors!

People just don't get nor comprehend how big these businesses are. An old shop floor guy in a hangar at Pratt & Whiney told a young engineer friend of mine who isn't young anymore and who was killing himself with long hours working on the early F-100 engine problems late into the night...

"Hey kid, you see those lights up there? You know how long they were turned off and this place brought to a stop when Mr. Whitney died out of respect?"

"Nope. How long?"

"They weren't turned off at all. And he was a lot more important than you or this project. Go home."

I've never looked up the history of P&W but Scott tells the story as if it was finally the moment he realized nobody cared at all about his engine problem he'd been attempting to slay for months, and P&W wouldn't be turning off any overhead lights in the hangar in effigy if he dropped dead from stress in the hangar. They'd just cart off his carcass and the lights and the business would keep right on going as if nothing had happened.

The only dead people being carted off in this crapshow of bad law, will be the local contractor and Mariott will leave the lights burning and still be around tomorrow.

Well anyway... One can retire pretty comfy on even $10M. The jury handed ESPN girl her meal ticket for life. They'll be back at their jobs hoping someone wants to look through a peephole at them, by now.

The lights are still on at all the Mariott properties and the phone system probably still shows extension numbers.

And two people argued over the outcome on the Internet.

I wasn't kidding when I said pop the thread back open in a year and let me know what materially different high security measures Mariott has implemented. I don't mind a nice surprise.

But I'll stick with "none" as my prediction. Or complimentary post it notes.

Meanwhile I'm going to probably go flying and talk airplanes over beers. And probably keep poking fun at people who think $55M is going to change the course of a $1.9B ship. Or sent a "big message". Ha. No.
 
I never thought it would happen in my lifetime, but I'm with Nate on this.
 
Anyone that has a job that puts them in front of the public still has a private life. I suspect that a lot of people in that position tend to want to protect that private life as much or more as any of the rest of us. A woman who is trying to be a legitimate reporter in what's traditionally been called a "man's job" has to deal with that pressure every day, too. Then some morning that privacy and professionalism is taken away, broadcast to the world, and from then on she's just a piece of meat and the comments of "meh, I've seen better" and "Oh, SHE's the one..." are what she gets to look forward to. Sure, she's done OK with her contracts with Fox Sports, but that's just one part of her life.

Maybe it's the dad of two daughters just getting started in their professional lives in me coming out, but I'm glad she pushed this. The award amount and 51-49 split? Dunno the jury's reasoning.
 
meanwhile, in something really REALLY important, I finally found the mismatched missing single-double-single quote in my shell script that calls Oracle data pump export so now I can clean up a legacy database and retire a server ... RIP server ... :)

Can I have $55MM, too?
 
gkainz said:
meanwhile, in something really REALLY important, I finally found the mismatched missing single-double-single quote in my shell script that calls Oracle data pump export so now I can clean up a legacy database and retire a server ... RIP server ... :)

Can I have $55MM, too?
Click to expand...
Did someone film you while you were doing that, and were you naked?
 
jkaduk said:
Did someone film you while you were doing that, and were you naked?
Click to expand...
1. possibly ... since I didn't have our amazing corporate developed anti-spy device installed over the camera on the laptop ... seriously - someone came up with a little plastic slide device that clips over the camera lens to prevent spying, and
2. I'll never tell ... working from home has some perks :D
 
gkainz said:
2. I'll never tell ... working from home has some perks :D
Click to expand...

I miss taking conference calls in my bathrobe. At noon or later. Audio only, of course. ;)

I particularly enjoyed taking the big company wide rah-rah ones that way.

Made me chuckle to imagine them looking out on the audience while they'd in top form giving the "why we are so wonderful again this year" speeches, and seeing me there kicked back in a chair not noticing my "petticoat" was showing, as Ron White would say, sipping a cup of coffee.

Hahaha. I probably should have spiked the coffee on those days. Damn my puritanical work ethic! :)
 
pete480 said:
That video was the best thing that ever happened to her.
Click to expand...

Even if true, it's irrelevant from the justice POV. I know a woman who had been unsuccessfully trying to conceive for years, then got severely injured while riding in a taxi cab. She survived the injuries, and miraculously got pregnant shortly afterwards. She sued the cab company and collected a pile of money, and is enjoying the money and her miracle son. Should the jury have deducted the pleasure of having a son from the settlement? No way, even if you could prove a scientific connection.
In the case of EA, it's possible that she gained as well as lost from the event, which would not be unusual, since most disasters (if not all) have silver linings. But we don't deduct the silver lining from the settlement -- that's life's consolation prize.
 
RotorDude said:
Even if true, it's irrelevant from the justice POV. I know a woman who had been unsuccessfully trying to conceive for years, then got severely injured while riding in a taxi cab. She survived the injuries, and miraculously got pregnant shortly afterwards. She sued the cab company and collected a pile of money, and is enjoying the money and her miracle son. Should the jury have deducted the pleasure of having a son from the settlement? No way, even if you could prove a scientific connection.
In the case of EA, it's possible that she gained as well as lost from the event, which would not be unusual, since most disasters (if not all) have silver linings. But we don't deduct the silver lining from the settlement -- that's life's consolation prize.
Click to expand...
Part of the measure of dames is loss of income. If she had none, that's relevant to her total recovery. Also, if she claims she can't function because she's so distraught, evidence that her career has taken off rebuts that claim.
 
PPC1052 said:
Part of the measure of dames is loss of income. If she had none, that's relevant to her total recovery. Also, if she claims she can't function because she's so distraught, evidence that her career has taken off rebuts that claim.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I can see how people would start excelling after a traumatic event, or otherwise start a new leaf (per my above post). The perpetrator of the trauma is still liable for damages, since trauma = pain.
That the victim has been able to deal with and overcome the trauma, and perhaps even turn it into a positive, is in no way reduction of the inflicted damage.
 
PPC1052 said:
Part of the measure of dames is loss of income. If she had none, that's relevant to her total recovery. Also, if she claims she can't function because she's so distraught, evidence that her career has taken off rebuts that claim.
Click to expand...

You would be correct if she was claiming lost future wages or diminished earning capacity. It appeared that what she was claiming was emotional distress damages. A garden variety rape often doesn't result in monetary damages but that does not limit a right to recover for the emotional trauma.
 
RotorDude said:
Disagree. I can see how people would start excelling after a traumatic event, or otherwise start a new leaf (per my above post). The perpetrator of the trauma is still liable for damages, since trauma = pain.
That the victim has been able to deal with and overcome the trauma, and perhaps even turn it into a positive, is in no way reduction of the inflicted damage.
Click to expand...
Your analysis lacks logic. D(Damages)=a(loss of income)+b(loss of future earning capacity)+c(emotional pain). (It's probably other stuff, too, but let's not make this too complicated for you.) I argued that the evidence of her career taking off negated a & b. You disagree pointing to c. I said nothing about c.
 
PPC1052 said:
Your analysis lacks logic. D(Damages)=a(loss of income)+b(loss of future earning capacity)+c(emotional pain). (It's probably other stuff, too, but let's not make this too complicated for you.) I argued that the evidence of her career taking off negated a & b. You disagree pointing to c. I said nothing about c.
Click to expand...

I guess you are missing my point. I disagree that you can deduct her gain from anything to do with the trauma, per the "consolation prize" I mentioned above. If I write a book about being brutalized by someone, and sue, the proceeds from the book should not be deducted from my damage claims. And of course, EA's pain (your item c) is also there, and gets added to the total that should be recovered, beyond any immediate monetary damages (excluding the "book"). So I don't see any problem with the jury's award in this case.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
I guess you are missing my point. I disagree that you can deduct her gain from anything to do with the trauma, per the "consolation prize" I mentioned above. If I write a book about being brutalized by someone, and sue, the proceeds from the book should not be deducted from my damage claims. And of course, EA's pain (your item c) is also there, and gets added to the total that should be recovered, beyond any immediate monetary damages (excluding the "book"). So I don't see any problem with the jury's award in this case.
Click to expand...


The term "recovered" applies well to real damages. It's goofy applied to made up numbers out of a jury's butt related to emotions.

"Extracted" would be more accurate. Or "Extortion."
 
LOL wow. Another stupid silly number.

(And we wonder why REAL product liability cases have written the slow death knell for "dangerous" hobbies like flying when letting someone videotape you doing the nasty (I haven't checked, but I think Hogan knew a camera was in the room?) gets you more money than most families make in profit on some of the largest family run businesses in the entire country?)

Even that article points out that Gawker only made $15M from the stunt.

And it's quite interesting that the jury didn't get to hear how the tape was made, why, nor how it ended up in Gawker's hands. Amazing how it's often impossible to tell the whole story to a jury.

I loved the line where Hogan said his real name and that was "who was sitting in the chair and he doesn't lie under oath", which if taken to the logical conclusion means he lies all the time as his alter ego, right? LOL. Such a "role model" for the kiddies.

But then again, the Gawker idiot also seems to think the 1st Amendment is for party to party and not party against government, which is his big mistake. It's not.

All I can figure is that there must be a lot of jurors out there who've made sex tapes. Haha.

At least in Erin's case the jury was just pretending someone might want to see THEM naked. Of course nobody wants to see the average juror naked, ever. But it works on them mentally as excellent manipulation for a big payday for Erin.

In the Hogan case, are they sitting there thinking its a good idea to ever film oneself porking your "best friend's" wife? Is this a big passtime amongst modern jurors such that they resonate with it? Haha.

But hey. No worries. It's okay if FBI looks at everything on your phone. They're good guys. Don't pay any attention to the hand sneaking behind the back to pick up the ace in the hole, while waving the other hand frantically yelling "privacy" with gobs of money in it.

Truly a nation of idiots. No doubt about it. We'll sue our way to privacy! Nevermind that we filmed ourselves stoinking...
 
Verdict amount a reflection of the degree of how despicable the defendant was. I have no sympathy for the dirt bag defendant. It will probably be reduced, but I can't say they didn't deserve to be hammered.
 
Kristin said:
Verdict amount a reflection of the degree of how despicable the defendant was. I have no sympathy for the dirt bag defendant. It will probably be reduced, but I can't say they didn't deserve to be hammered.
Click to expand...

That's not how the legal system is *supposed* to work, but what the hell, why not. Everything is all about feelings now, why not the legal system? Aww. It's precious adults want to play like they're he Lord of the Flies kids. Burn the witches too. Nobody likes them.

I never claimed any liking for the prick. I just figured juries aren't supposed to be deciding if they like somebody or not when it comes to civil damages. They're supposed to recover *damages*. Criminal courts are there for "punishments".

Of course the lawyers are chuckling at this comment.

Pretty charismatic people win, ugly awkward people lose. Better hope you're tall and pretty when someone claims civil damages. Wear a nice suit. Hope your lawyer is really good at manipulating people. Total farce if one thinks the legal system is about justice.

Notably you did not address the facts presented to the jury that the maximum damages (according to marketing experts in court) possible, was $15M. Maximum. As in "top of the possible range", not what they actually made.

Poor Hulk. Poor poor Hulk. No responsibility on him at all for pounding his "best friend"'s wife in front of a camera. It's not his fault at all... Nope. Yay fake victimhood! Hulky-poo won't ever have to work for a living again. Not that he did anyway.

The world is probably a better place, safe from Hulk Hogan home porn. I won't argue that. Ha.

He's all safe to bang someone else and film it and let that video out - if it hits the Net, he'll get maybe $500M next time. Why not? Give him $1B. That'll make it right.
 
denverpilot said:
That's not how the legal system is *supposed* to work, but what the hell, why not. Everything is all about feelings now, why not the legal system? Aww. It's precious adults want to play like they're he Lord of the Flies kids. Burn the witches too. Nobody likes them.

I never claimed any liking for the prick. I just figured juries aren't supposed to be deciding if they like somebody or not when it comes to civil damages. They're supposed to recover *damages*. Criminal courts are there for "punishments".

Of course the lawyers are chuckling at this comment.

Pretty charismatic people win, ugly awkward people lose. Better hope you're tall and pretty when someone claims civil damages. Wear a nice suit. Hope your lawyer is really good at manipulating people. Total farce if one thinks the legal system is about justice.

Notably you did not address the facts presented to the jury that the maximum damages (according to marketing experts in court) possible, was $15M. Maximum. As in "top of the possible range", not what they actually made.

Poor Hulk. Poor poor Hulk. No responsibility on him at all for pounding his "best friend"'s wife in front of a camera. It's not his fault at all... Nope. Yay fake victimhood! Hulky-poo won't ever have to work for a living again. Not that he did anyway.

The world is probably a better place, safe from Hulk Hogan home porn. I won't argue that. Ha.

He's all safe to bang someone else and film it and let that video out - if it hits the Net, he'll get maybe $500M next time. Why not? Give him $1B. That'll make it right.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is how our system is supposed to work. I personally would like to see some jury reform, but that doesn't change the fact that civil courts may award punitive damages and emotional distress damages. I would like to see better educated juries and that would restrain some of the more outrageous verdicts. I have no idea in this case what the breakdown was for compensatory versus punitive damages as that wasn't reported in that article.

I have no sympathy for Hogan, but the defendants were dirtbags and if it puts them out of business, I have no problem with that in this case.
 
Kristin said:
I have no sympathy for Hogan, but the defendants were dirtbags and if it puts them out of business, I have no problem with that in this case.
Click to expand...

So internet tabloids are all dirtbags and don't deserve to be in business? Why not just make tabloid news illegal if that's your end game anyway? Heck a nice sanitized State run newspaper should be all anyone needs or ever wants to read, right? (The fact that "newspapers" now have video content is a moot point.)

Maybe this tabloid served a real purpose to society, like showing off Hulky-poo for the depraved schmuck he really is?

Him being a victim seemed to ring a bell with the jury though. Maybe they're all headed home to film some sex with their "best friend"'s wives, too?

Somewhere in all of that the original immorality of his choices got lost. Thanks legal system! Pro tip: Don't film yourself banging your "best friend"'s wife and you won't be able to manipulate a really stupid jury into giving you $150M dollars.

Oops. I mean, you won't have to worry about tabloids posting them on the Internet. Silly me. $150M might just be enough to give it a try. Wouldn't want anyone thinking that! LOL...

Huh. Funny how well that works. No drama or false victimhood if you aren't a sick bastard who has an "alter ego" for the cameras (which he admitted to on the stand) for a living who decides to film your sexual escapades and "accidentally" lose control of said pork fest film.

He deserved $15M for his bad porn released by someone without his authorization per his own witnesses. That's all he deserved. But our modern society loves whining and crying and he got 10 times that for his excellent acting skills. Huh. Who would have guessed that, from Mr. Alter Ego? Well practiced at acting, perhaps? Hmmmm.
 
A crazy number maybe but if this makes scumbags think twice about posting somebody private videos without consent then this is a good outcome. I just read the gawker article although they have removed the video (don't want to see it anyway). What a bunch of dirtbags. I feel no sympathy for them.
 
That number could get higher:

>>>
The court will reconvene next week where the judge could decide to award punitive damages to Hogan.
<<<
 
denverpilot said:
So internet tabloids are all dirtbags and don't deserve to be in business? Why not just make tabloid news illegal if that's your end game anyway? Heck a nice sanitized State run newspaper should be all anyone needs or ever wants to read, right? (The fact that "newspapers" now have video content is a moot point.)
Click to expand...

Too busy ranting to read I see. Will don't let me stand in your way of ranting at the straw man you thusly created.
 
By the way, Hulk Hogan was awarded $25M in punitive damages yesterday. That's on top of the $115M already awarded.
 
Matthew said:
By the way, Hulk Hogan was awarded $25M in punitive damages yesterday. That's on top of the $115M already awarded.
Click to expand...

Very puzzling chain of events. Did 'Bubba the Lovesponge' pimp out his wife?
 
Matthew said:
By the way, Hulk Hogan was awarded $25M in punitive damages yesterday. That's on top of the $115M already awarded.
Click to expand...

His case was quite a bit different. A landmark case against the hosting website. But still, the dollar amount is way out of line. You'd have thought that he'd have a good case against his ex-best friend who secretly taped him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top