# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2016, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/161 "2016-03-08T23:18:38Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > I have been curious about this. Stalker won’t have to pay, because he can’t? What’s the point of the penalty, then? Stalker definitely has to pay. Stalker doesn’t have 51% of 55million (presumably). Andrews gets a nice judgment to hang on her wall. There’s nothing for her to collect from Stalker. Not sure about the state laws, but in Texas Stalkers house and first car are protected from being seized and sold to satisfy a civil judgment. Lots of people who are negligent and commit a harm are not sued because they are considered “judgment proof”. You’ll win, but can’t collect on the judgment. So they are never sued in the first place. Andrews attorneys were going after hotel/insurance money and did a nice job. That’s why OJ Simpson moved to Florida after his civil suit loss because the laws there are similar to Texas and friendly in protecting someone’s assets from civil judgments. And he had money. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/162 "2016-03-08T23:28:06Z")
You cannot put a monetary value on a moral wrong. It just doesn’t work. You can only put a monetary value on what is lost. Everything else is about punishment. And monetary punishment is relative to the ability to pay. You never want a company to get so large that it doesn’t feel the monetary punishment, or else that becomes useless. So no, not every thinking person thinks the amount is objectively absurd. You’re just poisoning the well against anyone who disagrees. The only thing absurd is that people have been paid less for wrongful death. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/163 "2016-03-08T23:29:19Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > In other words, you can’t argue with anything he said. He never once said he felt insulted. He just pointed out all the flaws in everything you said. > > I never understand these types of posts. It’s basically capitulating while pretending like you aren’t. How the other person acts has no bearing on whether his points are right or wrong. > > It’s just a cop out. I’m arguing for my own pleasure. If it ceases to be enjoyable, because people are getting worked up about my posts, I cease doing it. They can be right or wrong, makes no difference to me. I’m not “winning” anything. Does that make any sense to you? ---
**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 8, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/164 "2016-03-08T23:56:40Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I’m beyond surprised. Shocked. Hotels routinely grant guest’s requests for specific room. Many people that travel a lot have a room they prefer. There’s a world of difference between “can I have the corner room on the 4th floor that overlooks the park” vs. “can I have a room next to Joan Smith”. > [@](#): > > How was the hotel supposed to know they had a minor celebrity in the other room? Are they supposed to have a huge list taped on the wall of every special snowflake that requires strict procedures to protect? Erin was just a ESPN reporter. Not Lady Gaga. The hotel had no idea she’d attract a stalker. Why does a woman have to be a “celebrity” to have a right to privacy? Perfectly ordinary women have stalkers, crazy-ex’s, insane relatives, etc. It’s not about “special snowflakes”, it’s about safety and privacy for _everyone_. > [@](#): > > 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? If it hadn’t caused a problem up until then they were lucky - and actually, we _don’t_ know that there were no problems before this, this is just the one that was publicized. > [@](#): > > Ironically the video in question is terrible quality. Blurry, grainy, all she’s doing is brushing her hair. She’s almost unrecognizable in the video. Google Image her name nude and theres screen caps. They aren’t even worth a second look. Holy shit - you’re telling people _to google these pictures?_ WTF? These pictures were taken without her knowledge, against her will, and a jury found she was damaged by this and you’re _telling people to google them?_ What the HELL is wrong with you? Do you suggest people make obscene phone calls or piss in public places? You honestly saw nothing wrong with your suggestion to google that video? And what does the photographic quality have to do with it? She’s only allowed to complain if the video is good quality, she’s recognizable, and you’re turned on? Again - what the hell were you thinking when you posted that? > [@](#): > > Compare her case to celebrities that got hacked a year ago. They had very clear, explicit, and embarrassing photos on the cloud that got released on the Internet. No ones awarded them 55 million. However, I could get behind awarding those folks comparable damages… > [@peedin](#): > > A $55 million settlement is ridiculous. How is that supposed to make up for her “mental suffering?” I can only hope she donates a substantial part to charity. > [@Rigamarole](#): > > _Extremely_ grainy pics that could basically be anyone if they hadn’t been “verified” as being of this particular person. > > As it turns out, humans all have the same basic anatomy. Although feeling embarrassed about one’s naked body is common and probably mostly socially induced, it is not in fact a life-shattering problem. Many people regard a woman who’s nude photos are on the internet as morally suspect, loose, and less good, just as many people still blame rape victims for “asking for it” or not doing enough to prevent. They _shouldn’t_ do that, but they do. And that’s the problem - not only can a woman be penalized by society for nude photos she didn’t consent to, many minimize the mental impact and social problems this can cause. > [@](#): > > By the way, if the victim here had been a man would people still be saying he “deserves every penny”? Nakedness in men is not seen in the same way as naked women, but I, for one, think that yes, a man unknowingly and unwillingly photographed in such a manner is also deserving of compensation. > [@Hampshire](#): > > Do people really have the “right” to have their physical location information private at all times? Maybe not, but they should. > [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Also, as I understand it, a decision like this merely gives the plaintiff the right to initiate collection proceedings; the court isn’t going to seize $55 million worth of assets and turn them over to her. She can initiate liens and other vehicles to get her money, but they can be as slow and obstructionist as the law allows. They could still negotiate a settlement where they basically say “here’s $10 million, now leave us alone, otherwise we’re going to make it as hard and expensive as we possibly can for you to collect.” ^ This. I sued someone a few years ago and won - a much smaller award, but the problem is much the same. I was awarded seven times the amount the defendant owed me by the judge, in accordance with applicable statutes. All that did was allow to _try_ to collect. It took a lawyer and 18 months to get anything at all. We could not get everything in one fell swoop because the defendant was broke (actually bankrupt, but she couldn’t afford to file for such). A payment plan was negotiated during a meeting with her other creditors. Monthly payments have been erratic. As the defendant has apparently treated the IRS in a similar manner she may be going to jail very soon, after which I will collect no more. I’ve gotten about 1/4 of what was awarded, the lawyer took 1/3 of what was collected. That’s probably it, forever. I’ve been told by several parties that I have been unusually successful and fortunate in collecting that much, many winners collect nothing at all. Erin Andrews may have been awarded $55 million - it is highly unlikely she will ever _collect_ $55 million. ---
**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, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/165 "2016-03-09T00:52:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You appear to be assuming that the only choices are “doing nothing” and “massive punitive damages awards”. > > In many cases, the field between those two options is filled by regulatory agencies of various sorts - from voluntary, through self-regulatory bodies, to agencies of the government like the securities and exchange commission. > > I’m totally unclear as to why trusting to random massive punitive damages in lawsuits (which I have been assured in this very thread are infrequent) is the best means of ensuring public safety, let alone evaluating the relative value of various safety options! > > To put it another way - every business on this planet has a limit to what it can spend on safety and security. If it spends above that limit, it is no longer profitable and goes out of business. Therefore, choices have to be made. > > Should those choices be made by (1) a regulatory code, worked out in painstaking detail by experts in the field, or (2) by what amounts to _random chance_ - those areas that (purely by chance) someone happens to get injured by a lack of, sue on, and win a massive punitives award (each, in its own way, an unlikely event)? > > I quite fail to see why the latter is, not only a _good_ system, but the _best possible_ system. I would suspect that any decent regulatory system would cost a lot more then $55 million per year, which would be paid for not just by hotels which screw up but also those who do not. How many inspectors would you have to hire to inspect more than once every few years? Would they even have caught this security breach? If you can guarantee that no one would be hurt that would be one thing, but restaurants and food processors get inspected all the time and there are still problems. They know they can get sued also. You’ve already heard how good hotels handle this problem. I’m sure no one will make the same mistake again. If the hotel did it maliciously I’m sure there would be criminal penalties also. The case I described wasn’t malicious either - just careless. And maybe cheap. No one guarantees anyone a profit. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/166 "2016-03-09T00:52:28Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The one critique I do not see in this article is one I’ve been making here - that they are a damn poor means of achieving regulation. One of the problems in the United States, at the level of government and policy, is that many of the same people who argue for “tort reform” and an end to high punitive damages have, historically, been among the same people who consistently argue against tighter government regulation of industry. _ **You** _ might be arguing that what we need is a system of better oversight and regulation, because it will work better than a sort of lottery that we get with the current tort system. I can see the merit in that argument. I have argued, in the past, that criminal laws should be expanded to encompass certain corporate behaviors that are currently shielded from criminal prosecution, and that regulatory fines (paid to the state, and not simply to a plaintiff) should be increased considerably. Unfortunately, though, there have been plenty of people who argue that we need to get rid of both safeguards - regulation _ **and** _ punitive damages. In the absence of a regulatory system that provides for sufficient penalties and other deterrents, i think that having a system of punitive damages is, for all of its drawbacks, better than nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/167 "2016-03-09T01:00:09Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > There’s a world of difference between “can I have the corner room on the 4th floor that overlooks the park” vs. “can I have a room next to Joan Smith”. Is the latter what actually happened? > [@](#): > > Erin Andrews may have been awarded $55 million - it is highly unlikely she will ever _collect_ $55 million. This point isn’t what’s being argued. We’re arguing whether $55 million is an appropriate judicial award in this case. To me, it seems plainly excessive for what the hotel did (which I’m still not sure even ought to amount to negligence). ---
**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, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/168 "2016-03-09T01:04:57Z")
Question for our hotel people - are there surveillance cameras in the hallways? I’d think they’d be quite useful in detecting people trying to break into rooms and even for protection of the cleaning staff who work by themselves in rooms with the door open. Someone using a drill on a door should show right up - if anyone is watching, and in any case knowing there are cameras would have been a deterrent in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/169 "2016-03-09T01:12:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > There’s a world of difference between “can I have the corner room on the 4th floor that overlooks the park” vs. “can I have a room next to Joan Smith”. Is that explicitly said anywhere? One of the articles I read seemed to say he just figured out where she was then asked for room number XXX for whatever plausible reasons. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/170 "2016-03-09T02:32:44Z")
Again, this incident was not a rare stroke of bad luck brought on by an unusual guest. It’s a predictable result of their poor security practices. At my little celebrity-free 25 room roadside motel, I personally dealt with similar security issues on probably a monthly basis (and I generally manned the desk once a week). If you do not institute the most basic security practices (I mean, my training on this was basically twenty seconds of being told “Don’t ever give out a room number, got it?”), then you WILL have a security situation at some point. It’s inevitable. And it’s entirely up to luck if that breach ends in a loud argument or if it ends in a shootout. Guests are vulnerable in hotel rooms. They are often alone. They are in an unfamiliar setting. They don’t know where the potential weak points are. A hotel can’t prevent every single risk. But they certainly can take standard measures that mitigate the basic risks they routinely encounter. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/171 "2016-03-09T03:26:19Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Again, this incident was not a rare stroke of bad luck brought on by an unusual guest. It’s a predictable result of their poor security practices. > > At my little celebrity-free 25 room roadside motel, I personally dealt with similar security issues on probably a monthly basis (and I generally manned the desk once a week). You deal with committed stalkers motivated enough to alter a room peephole on a monthly basis? I take you at your word that generally protecting the security of your guests is a major priority to you, but I am not sure the mistakes made here warrant such a high award when it’s pretty clear this guy would not have been stopped by even above average security measures. Should hotels just never allow people to request specific rooms? Should they ID everyone who enters a hotel in case they are stalking someone (as some Vegas hotels do at the elevator)? Should they eliminate peepholes and sweep for bugs on a regular basis? While I think some of the criticism against Andrews has been pretty vile and unfair, I just don’t see how the award is justified beyond her being a pretty, sympathetic victim. It would be like arguing Apple should be on the hook for $5.5 billion for the icloud hack that affected over 100 celebrities. Does that sounds reasonable to you just because Apple had relatively lax security that was foiled by committed hackers, and a bunch of money? ---
**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, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/172 "2016-03-09T03:45:32Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > It would be like arguing Apple should be on the hook for $5.5 billion for the icloud hack that affected over 100 celebrities. Does that sounds reasonable to you just because Apple had relatively lax security that was foiled by committed hackers, and a bunch of money? If a computer company encourages people to put their data on a “cloud” then they should be held responsible for keeping that data secure. I wouldn’t have a problem with Apple being penalized to that degree, because it would motivate all companies holding data to do a better job of securing it. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/173 "2016-03-09T04:11:17Z")
I don’t much care one way or another but 55 million dollars seems a tad excessive for anything not involving loss of life or limb, make that limbs plural. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/174 "2016-03-09T05:14:15Z")
How much does Erin Andrews’ position as a female sportscaster in the male-dominated sports world rely on her being taken seriously in her job and not being seen as just a sex object? Her lucrative celebrity gigs on Dancing With the Stars, etc, hinge on her prominence in her sports-reporting role. How easily could that all be lost when nude pics of her are displayed all over the internet for the rest of her effective working life? I should think her potential income losses would come into play when a jury decides its award. Then throw in the punitive damages. The hotel was hugely negligent in allowing her room number to be revealed to absolutely anyone who asked to talk to her on the phone. That’s mind-boggling stupid. For Aceplace to state that it was her own responsibility to provide her own personal security force in order to not have video footage taken of her inside her hotel room is absurd. Not unexpected, in Aceplace’s case, but absurd. Of course, after this, she very well might have to, if only for her own peace of mind. That isn’t going to come cheap. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/175 "2016-03-09T05:39:43Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > The hotel was hugely negligent in allowing her room number to be revealed to absolutely anyone who asked to talk to her on the phone. That’s mind-boggling stupid. That is not what happened AFAICT. Feel free to correct me if I am misreading these articles, but what happened was that he independently found out the hotel where she was staying, then he called the hotel operator from an in-house phone asking to be connected to her. Because of a quirk in the phone system, he was able to see the room number when he was connected. He then asked for a specific room next to hers without mention of Andrews being next door. Now it’s important to note why the system is this way. The point is that when you call from your room, the person in whatever area knows what room it is so they can respond to you by name, or know your room number when you order something. Obviously this system has flaws when someone deliberately uses this to gain information they shouldn’t have, but the main crime seems to be that this guy was somehow able to get to a house phone in the first place. I can imagine there are circumstances where the above was a particularly egregious mistake, but it’s fairly telling this guys claims to have done this to more than 10 women. What can be done about this broadly speaking? Should hotels never connect you to a person or room when you call because some weirdo might spy on you? Should they never grant specific room requests? It’s not as if his gaining access to the adjacent room was actually material to his spying. Yes, it made it easier to avoid suspicion, but given he was apparently standing near her door for minutes filming her from the outside, having the next room didn’t matter too much. Again, I can see how the hotel could possibly improve their procedures, but is that a $27 million mistake? I get why she is devastated, but why is this mistake one that should destroy the livelihoods of dozens of employees who had nothing to do with this? ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/176 "2016-03-09T06:01:03Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Again, I can see how the hotel could possibly improve their procedures, but is that a $27 million mistake? I get why she is devastated, but why is this mistake one that should destroy the livelihoods of dozens of employees who had nothing to do with this? I think that you are too hasty in attributing malicious intent to the jury that awarded the money. Punitive damages are supposed to be proportional, and it was the job of the lawyers to convince the jurors that the owners of the hotel had enough assets to cover the costs without going bankrupt. Sure, that much money would wreck just one hotel, but we don’t know how rich the owners actually are. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/177 "2016-03-09T06:03:30Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > I don’t much care one way or another but 55 million dollars seems a tad excessive for anything not involving loss of life or limb, make that limbs plural. Exactly. If a worker lost both of his legs in an industrial accident, I’d be surprised to see him get _ **$5.5** _ million. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/178 "2016-03-09T06:04:36Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > While I think some of the criticism against Andrews has been pretty vile and unfair, I just don’t see how the award is justified beyond her being a pretty, sympathetic victim. It would be like arguing Apple should be on the hook for $5.5 billion for the icloud hack that affected over 100 celebrities. Does that sounds reasonable to you just because Apple had relatively lax security that was foiled by committed hackers, and a bunch of money? If all the actresses joined into a class action suit and won damages of $5.5 billion from a jury, then I would say it’s reasonable, yes. If, say, just Jennifer Lawrence alone sued for damages and won $55 million from a jury decision, I’d probably say she got lowballed. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/179 "2016-03-09T06:05:53Z")
Also, for those who like to talk about wealth inequality and the 1%, do you think that an average, typical non-celebrity person who suffered this type of privacy violation should be awarded $55 million (if a hotel could afford to pay)? If not, why not? Isn’t this disparate treatment of wealthy vs. non-wealthy? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/180 "2016-03-09T06:47:03Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I think this is the problem with jury-awarded settlements. To most people, there’s no difference between $55,000,0000 and a zillion jillion kabillion dollars, because they’re both impossibly large sums that they can’t even comprehend. 55 million is a fucking SILLY penalty amount for the liability of the hotel in this case. This. Exactly this, and I’m with all the others who said the same thing. Does everyone remember Rodney King, the LA cab driver who was viciously beaten by police back in the 90s? When video of the beatings surfaced, it shocked the world, and subsequently led to the LA riots. King was left with broken bones, neurological damage, and trauma, and at the time of his lawsuit against the city of LA it appeared that he would be unable to work again for the rest of his life. For this the city offered him about $1.25 million in damages. He took it to court, and with the impetus of international news coverage and the horrific nature of the beatings, he was [eventually awarded $3.8 million](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/20/us/rodney-king-is-awarded-3.8-million.html). But this woman – who frankly I’ve never heard of, not that it should matter one way or the other – is awarded $55 million because someone filmed her titties. I think the above quote about the idiocy of juries is only a small part of the problem, although Dave Barry summed it up nicely in a sarcastic bit that went something along the lines of the jury looking at the plaintiff and saying something like “well, that was great, and now Vanna will show you what you’ve won – wow! – a matching washer and dryer, and an an all-expenses paid trip to the beautiful Hawaii Hilton PLUS a matching luggage set!”. I think the premise is that it’s all a big reality show and the number of zeroes at the end of the figure is kind of like decoration. The fact is, though, rationalize it how you will, that the cost of all these jury awards is a cost that ultimately is borne by everyone. Actually, here’s the real problem with lawsuit-madness – the propensity for everyone to sue everyone else for all grievances, real or imagined. Figures like $55 million versus $5 million or $5 trillion may be hard to conceptualize, but here’s a figure that’s easy to understand: The US has less than 5% of the world population, but it has two thirds of all its lawyers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=10)