# Erin Andrews is awarded 55 million by jury. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 8, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244 "2016-03-08T00:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/201 "2016-03-09T15:19:51Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Clearly you are unfamiliar with the way I normally natter one when I’m NOT speechless! > No, actually you do NOT have those “rights”. > > The _court_, and by extension the judge and jury, have the right to that knowledge, you do not. You are an unconnected bystander. You only have the “right” to know what the court system and the victim deems fit to release to the public. > Define “damages” > > Is it solely the dollar cost to a career? > > Is it the cost of psychiatric therapy for on-going mental problems stemming from an incident? > > Is it the cost of personal security (human staff or otherwise) in order to prevent a repeat of the same? > > Again - when I sued someone for failure to pay wages (granted, a very different subject but still damages addressed in a civil suit) the _law itself_ dictated that I not receive “the actual cost” of what was denied me but _seven times_ that amount. And, having been through it, the cost to me was not the lost wages, but also the lost time from work to go to court, the cost of a lawyer, the interest on the money I had to borrow to make rent and bills while the bitch held onto the money I had earned and left me without income, and a lot of mental energy and anger over the whole affair. > > So… not _just_ the dollar amount to her career, but the cost of therapy, of greater security, of lawyers, court filing fees, and sleeplessness nights. > > Is 55 million excessive? I don’t have an opinion on that, other than to say that I think awards in other, less publicized cases probably should be more rather than less. Part of the award is to acknowledge that there are non-monetary damages to a victim as well as hard dollar amounts, and costs involved with bringing a case like this to court. > Yes. > The difference is that a message board is NOT a court of law – no, you _do not_ have a right to violate someone’s privacy or confidentiality to “win” a thread. Sometimes, you just have to acknowledge you do not and _can not_ know all pertinent information. > Oddly enough, though, we do NOT see the actual moment of death. If the cop dash cam films someone running naked through the street versions released to the public are pixelated. Names of victims of sexual assault are not released to the public without the victim’s permission. So even in those cases the “right” of the public to know things is restricted. There’s a point where your “right” to know is blocked by the target of attention’s right to privacy and confidentiality. > You have a right to an opinion. You do NOT have a right to violate this woman’s privacy AGAIN in order to form that opinion. > If she has been raped on film instead of merely filmed naked would you say that you also had a right to watch that video of an actual crime in order to form an “opinion”? Why? Can’t you decide on just the fact a rape was committed whether there was a crime or not? Is it right or wrong to secretly film a woman naked without her knowledge or consent, yes or no? That’s not a difficult question to answer, and shouldn’t need qualifications like “is she pretty or not?”. > > For me the answer is simple: filming people naked without their consent is wrong. I don’t need to see the video to figure that out. Why do you? No one is question whether it was wrong. No one is questioning whether it is appropriate to view a sexual attack to determine if it’s wrong. The question raised in this thread is whether that crime justified a 55 million dollar award. Some of us lack a active imagination and can’t natter on about things we’re not familiar with, so we ask for cites. This is a message board. The issue is not whether she was harmed, we agree on that, the issue is was it a 55 million dollar harm. How do you take someone’s word for that? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/202 "2016-03-09T15:25:04Z")
Still sounds to me like you want an excuse to see a video of a nekkid female, and you’re using this to justify violating her privacy AGAIN. Don’t you get it - that sort of casual viewing by total strangers is EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS OBJECTING TO. She can NEVER stop it because of the nature of the internet. You watching the video of her is violating her all over again. Why don’t you get that? ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/203 "2016-03-09T15:31:58Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > We have pedophiles participating in threads on kiddy porn here at the SDMB? > > Please try a little harder to stay within the lines when responding to me. I’m asking you a serious question. Does your rationale give you the right to look at other criminally gathered images of nude people taken without their knowledge? A teacher secretly films children in the locker room, the parents sue and the dollar amount is so high that you now have the right to look at the film. Is that how it works? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/204 "2016-03-09T15:32:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … Why don’t you get that? Honestly, I don’t “get” 99.99% of what you post. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/205 "2016-03-09T15:37:48Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I’m asking you a serious question. Does your rationale give you the right to look at other criminally gathered images of nude people taken without their knowledge? A teacher secretly films children in the locker room, the parents sue and the dollar amount is so high that you now have the right to look at the film. Is that how it works? And I answered this. The question, as presented in this OP, calls into question the _55 million dollar award_ for THIS case. Was the jury award of 55 million fair and equitable in this case? Your _if my aunt had wings she’d be an airplane_ questions are not related to this point. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/206 "2016-03-09T15:55:49Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And I answered this. The question, as presented in this OP, calls into question the _55 million dollar award_ for THIS case. Was the jury award of 55 million fair and equitable in this case? Your _if my aunt had wings she’d be an airplane_ questions are not related to this point. Ok, so let’s break it down what is it about THIS case that gives you the “right” to view video of a naked person gathered illegally? Apparently, it’s the $55 million, so if it had been $54 million would you still have the “right?” What dollar amount for an award does it cut off where you no longer have the “right” to view Ms. Andrews naked? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/207 "2016-03-09T16:13:00Z")
This editorial reflects whats been said by many in this thread. The amount of the judgement against the hotel is much too high. Especially when compared to victims or the families of the victim, that were awarded judgements for more serious crimes. > **[Erin Andrews’ $55M award makes a mockery of pain and suffering](https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/03/08/erin-andrews-55m-award-makes-a-mockery-of-pain-and-suffering/)** > > No disrespect to the jury in the Erin Andrews case, but I can’t breathe. The Fox Sports reporter just got a $55 million award for the pain and suffering of being videotaped naked in a Nashvil… > [@](#): > > Such a huge jury verdict makes a mockery of real pain and genuine suffering. Eric Garner, 43, was choked to death by an NYPD cop on a city street. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide. His family got $5.9 million. > > The family of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, killed in that “rough ride” in a Baltimore police van in 2015, got $6.4 million. > > Cleveland police shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice — and his mother had to fight for an apology. And she got hit with an ambulance bill. > > I’m not comparing the value of lives taken by the state to a celebrity’s embarrassment at being seen naked — because there’s simply no comparison. > [@](#): > > By no means am I saying that Erin Andrews shouldn’t be compensated for what happened to her. And we need juries to punish wrongdoing, including Marriott’s failure to provide Andrews with a secure room. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/208 "2016-03-09T16:30:26Z")
So we can agree that the sums given to those assaulted by police, or their survivors, are much too low–at least in terms of their effectiveness in deterring the criminal behavior. Conversely, does anyone doubt that this case will make every hotel operator in the country re-evaluate their guest privacy and security practices? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/209 "2016-03-09T16:56:31Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > So we can agree that the sums given to those assaulted by police, or their survivors, are much too low–at least in terms of their effectiveness in deterring the criminal behavior. Conversely, does anyone doubt that this case will make every hotel operator in the country re-evaluate their guest privacy and security practices? If the only consideration is “behavior modification”, there is never any incentive to apply the breaks on the quantum of compensation. Why not award every victim an even billion? That will ensure no-one ever does anything wrong again. This is the same sort of thinking, in purely criminal matters, that results in excessively long sentences. The problem is that the social goals such as “behavior modification” ought, IMO, to be weighed against the (largely invisible) social costs of imposing massive penalties. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/210 "2016-03-09T17:30:22Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I’m asking you a serious question. Does your rationale give you the right to look at other criminally gathered images of nude people taken without their knowledge? A teacher secretly films children in the locker room, the parents sue and the dollar amount is so high that you now have the right to look at the film. Is that how it works? > [@Morgenstern](#): > > And I answered this. The question, as presented in this OP, calls into question the _55 million dollar award_ for THIS case. Was the jury award of 55 million fair and equitable in this case? Your _if my aunt had wings she’d be an airplane_ questions are not related to this point. So, **Morgenstern** … if creepy Uncle Jerk makes secret videos of Niece Chastity (age 6) and posts them on the internet, and Niece Chastity is awarded $55 million in damages does that give you the “right” to view a bad video of a naked 6 year old, or is it only adult women who have no right to privacy in your view? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/211 "2016-03-09T17:44:30Z")
> [@crazyjoe](#): > > Oh, you know, small brands like Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Drury… Then you need to talk to the manager of these dumps, since the desk clerk is really screwing up the procedures. I don’t think one has said my room number out loud for ten years at least. And it is not accidental - they are clearly following procedures and are very careful about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/212 "2016-03-09T17:44:44Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > and another thing. In almost all locations, we have a choice of hotels. We can stay in one that doesn’t give out its guests’ room numbers. By the way, this isn’t just a problem for celebrity stalkers, normal everyday people sometimes are trying to hide from abusive spouses, etc. I have a friend who had a virtual stranger knock on her hotel room one night…he told the clerk he was her husband when in fact she had just met him that night at a bar and the clerk gave him the room number. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/213 "2016-03-09T18:04:36Z")
A lot of women have had the experience of some creep they just met, or who is following them, or something similar claiming to be her “boyfriend” or “husband” when confronted by authorities. Including me. Apparently most men do not experience this. Must be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/214 "2016-03-09T18:12:40Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > So, **Morgenstern** … if creepy Uncle Jerk makes secret videos of Niece Chastity (age 6) and posts them on the internet, and Niece Chastity is awarded $55 million in damages does that give you the “right” to view a bad video of a naked 6 year old, or is it only adult women who have no right to privacy in your view? That would be illegal to watch. I do not do anything illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/215 "2016-03-09T18:27:40Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > Ok, so let’s break it down what is it about THIS case that gives you the “right” to view video of a naked person gathered illegally? Apparently, it’s the $55 million, so if it had been $54 million would you still have the “right?” What dollar amount for an award does it cut off where you no longer have the “right” to view Ms. Andrews naked? Let me give you another example. If the voyeur had been convicted of a crime involving filming an unsuspecting female, and received 3 to 5 year (or so) sentence, I would have said “justice is served” and ignored it. If the same person had received 5 consecutive life sentences for that same act, and someone posted a thread on this board raising those sentences as an issue, I would have wondered what the fuck was so egregious about this _particular_ crime that 5 consecutive life sentences were necessary. I would google it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/216 "2016-03-09T18:44:12Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I would have wondered what the fuck was so egregious about this _particular_ crime that 5 consecutive life sentences were necessary. I would google it. How would a written account of the tape (uncontested by both sides in the case) not provide the same information so you could satisfy your curiosity? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/217 "2016-03-09T18:55:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > How would a written account of the tape (uncontested by both sides in the case) not provide the same information so you could satisfy your curiosity? Possibly. But words are subjective. Obviously, in this case, there was considerable differences in the opinions of both sides as to the extent of the damages, not whether the acts were legal or not. If jury verdicts were 100% reliable, remittitur would not exist. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/218 "2016-03-09T18:59:58Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Let me give you another example. > > If the voyeur had been convicted of a crime involving filming an unsuspecting female, and received 3 to 5 year (or so) sentence, I would have said “justice is served” and ignored it. > > If the same person had received 5 consecutive life sentences for that same act, and someone posted a thread on this board raising those sentences as an issue, I would have wondered what the fuck was so egregious about this _particular_ crime that 5 consecutive life sentences were necessary. I would google it. Ok, so what is the figure where you don’t have the right to see Ms. Andrews naked? $15 million? If it was too low, would you once again be able to assert that right? “$1? I’ve got to see that video?” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/219 "2016-03-09T19:04:47Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > It came out in trial that the stalker guy got her room number from the hotel’s phone system. **It was displayed when her room was dialed.** They have hundreds of guests staying in that hotel and this hasn’t posed a problem. Then one self-entitled ESPN reporter checks in and it costs them 55 million? bolding mine. IIRC the eggshell skull rules says that you pay damages. If your plaintiff accrues greater damages than the average person would you pay the damages that the person who was harmed incurs. The jury apparently thought she got hurt on the order of $55 million. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/220 "2016-03-09T19:07:16Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > You do know that you and I will be paying for this? 55 million is big money even for a large hotel chain. They’ll have to raise their room rates. That comes out of my pocket. > > Will they discontinue letting people request a special room? Maybe the one a couple honeymooned in years earlier? Guests have requested a specific room at hotels ever since they first opened in the 1920’s and 30’s. Millions of people could could be effected if this booking policy is discontinued. > > All because of this one case. you know these hotel chains have competitors to keep that from happening, right? You know these hotel chains have shareholders are supposed to absorb these risks, right? Shit, what was I thinking. Hotel chains across the board will use this as an excuse to increase rates and the shareholders will make even MORE money. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=12)