Erin Andrews is awarded 55 million by jury.

[Morgenstern]

@madmonk28

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?”

You keep wanting to change facts and solicit “what if” responses. I thought I made it clear I wasn’t playing that game.

[Bruce_Wayne]

Couldn’t Erin Andrews have the video removed from the Internet legally?

[madmonk28]

@Morgenstern

You keep wanting to change facts and solicit “what if” responses. I thought I made it clear I wasn’t playing that game.

It would seem that you started that game when you claimed that you have a right to see the video to evaluate whether or not the award was justified. I’m asking at what value you no longer have a right to see her naked against her wishes? Your game, I’m just trying to understand the rules.

[fachverwirrt]

@Bruce_Wayne

Couldn’t Erin Andrews have the video removed from the Internet legally?

How? The internet isn’t a cohesive thing; it’s exists on millions of computers scattered across the globe. Even if there were a single controlling jurisdiction, there’s no way for them to find and delete every single copy of the video, let alone prevent somebody from uploading it again.

[Morgenstern]

@madmonk28

It would seem that you started that game when you claimed that you have a right to see the video to evaluate whether or not the award was justified. I’m asking at what value you no longer have a right to see her naked against her wishes? Your game, I’m just trying to understand the rules.

@Morgenstern

You keep wanting to change facts and solicit “what if” responses. I thought I made it clear I wasn’t playing that game.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

I still don’t see how the hotel is 49% responsible because somebody was able to figure out from the phones where a minor celebrity was staying and drill holes in her door. Yes, the woman in question should be able to control who gets to see her naked. But since I don’t know how this creep was able to figure out what room she was in, I don’t know what reasonable steps the hotel should have taken to prevent that.

Regards,
Shodan

Liability is usually cut off by an intervening criminal act but I seem to recall that innkeepers have a special duty of care to prevent harm to their guests. I don’t know how this changes things.

How was the stalker able to get the information? Did he have to hack their system or was is readily available to anyone that had access to their lobby phone?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Charlie_Wayne

I would guess the odds are that she won’t get hardly anything. Someone upthread said this would likely be settled out of court. I would guess that is very likely true.

But, I would guess it will be settled for pennies on the dollar and that it would be settled with the primary thought in mind that the lawyers get paid for their time and no one will care about poor Erin.

She will likely walk away with Zip. Pretty much … Zip!

Real life is just nothing like TV. As soon as the lawyers get the notion they will get a decent amount of money, it will be game over. Over and done. Good night Irene.

P.S. Apologies to anyone named Irene.

You do realize that Erin is the one that has to sign the settlement agreement, right?

The lawyers are usually bound by contract to take a percentage of the money that is actually recovered (after they recoup their expenses (which does not include their time spent)).

[psychonaut]

@Bruce_Wayne

Couldn’t Erin Andrews have the video removed from the Internet legally?

Sure, if she wants to play the legal, international equivalent of Whac-A-Mole for the rest of her life.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@madsircool

The case is over. She gets her 55 mil unless a judge rules otherwise.

The trial is over. There are at least 2 or 3 layers of appeals. that can overturn the verdict, the award or both.

SCOTUS has been known to step in and reverse awards that were excessive.

BMW v Gore.

BMW deceived its customers by applying a cheap paint job on cars that had been damaged by acid rain on the trip over from Germany. The trial court awarded $4000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. The court ruled that this is nucking futz and the eventual award was $50,000.

In particular they had problems with the fact that the "conduct was not particularly reprehensible (no reckless disregard for health or safety, nor even evidence of bad faith). "

So unless we are talking about 55 million dollars of ACTUAL damages here, this ain’t over. Not by a long shot.

Ginsburg and Scalia joined each other in a dissenting opinion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Guinastasia

Considering that celebrities have been killed by their stalkers (and of course, non-celebrities as well), it sure as hell doesn’t seem like nothing. The hotel was insanely negligent.

Huh? It’s too late to settle – it went to a jury and she won. Do you not know how a trial works?

You know that there is an appeal process that can say that the hotel is not liable at all, right?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

Is it worth it to “send a message”? What’s the message - that hotels should ensure that their employees never make a mistake?

This is not a message to hotels to never fuck up, it is a message to litigants that the tort system is a lottery.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@msmith537

The flip side of that is if damages aren’t high enough, businesses will simply calculate the cost of paying out those damages in lieu of actually taking any corrective action.

The number is so high because these are punitive damages as opposed to compensatory damages. They are trying to make an example out of this hotel so the next time some concierge or desk clerk is thinking about revealing which room a guest is staying in (particularly a high profile one), they will think twice knowing how serious the consequences could be.

Punitive damages usually requires some form of intent. You don’t normally get punitive damages for mere negligence. You certainly don’t get punitive damages when there is an intervening criminal act.

How much of the $55 million was actual damages and how much was punitive because you are normally not jointly and severally liable for punitive damages. You normally don’t hold a negligent party jointly and severally liable with a criminal party.

This award is unlikely to survive scrutiny. It probably violates due process and is probably coming out of one of the judicial hellholes where the jury pools are cracked.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Banquet_Bear

…this isn’t about “rich or famous” guests. This is about basic security that every single hotel should be offering to every single guest.

You’ve already heard from several ex/current hotel employees in this thread. I’ve worked at 6 different hotels, from a very small hotel to 3 of the biggest in the country.

Not revealing the room number of a guest is one of the basic things taught to every hotel employee (from General Managers to the cleaners) at every hotel I’ve worked at (from 1-5 Star standard), and is supposed to be part of the basic training at every major hotel chain in the world. We are trained on ways that people will try and “trick us” to get Hotel Room Numbers.

This hotel fucked up. And it didn’t just fuck up over this incident. **Every single guest **that stayed at this hotel **was exposed with exactly the same security flaw **that hopefully they have fixed by now. And every other hotel in the country now have a 55 million dollar incentive to get things right.

Is there a law or regulation that requires this level of privacy? Or is it just custom?

[Idle_Thoughts]

Let’s keep the hostilities down and remember that there is the Pit if anyone wants to have a Pit-like conversation about this subject with anyone else.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Banquet_Bear

Revealing hotel room numbers of guests is not “garden-variety negligence.” As has been pointed out several times by hotel industry insiders: security of room numbers is essential. There are two things drilled into every employee: make sure doors are locked and don’t give out room numbers to anyone.

This hotel exposed every hotel guest name and room number. It is an un-imaginable security breach that, again as pointed out by others, should have been readily picked up in a security audit. That it wasn’t is gross negligence.

Why was it gross negligence and not mere negligence (or negligence at all?). In order for negligence to apply, there has to be some duty of care that is not met. What is the duty of care to provide privacy? Why was this duty of care grossly disregarded by the fact that there was a FLAW in the system. Was the flaw put there intentionally so that people could figure out where people were staying?

ISTM the hotel might be liable for something because they were in fact negligent but the amount of the award seems like its violative of due process.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@EllisDee

By definition, such a system wouldn’t work fairly.

Bill Gates could freely commit civil offenses every day of his life without a care in the world if the penalty only considered effect, instead of also taking into account the penalty’s impact on the perpetrator.

What is it that you think Bill gates could do all the time without a care in the world under a regime that doesn’t allow punitive damages for mere negligence?

Lets see, he can pretty much speed until he start to trigger criminal laws.

He can park in the middle of broadway to hop into get brunch every day of his life and not even notice until he start breaking criminal laws.

What is it that you think he will be able to get away with if we don’t apply punitive damages to mere negligence?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Banquet Bear;19163195Liebeck v. McDonald’s puts the lie to this. Not only did she get a payout but McDonalds changed their systems and procedures as well.[/quote]

How much do you think she got? Total less than $600,000

See BMW v Gore where the Supreme Court called bullshit on excessive punitive damages.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Peremensoe

It is not a means of achieving regulation at all. It is a different kind of remedy, the only one available that both compensates victims and applies corrective pressure on the industries and institutions it targets.

There was no bad faith, deceit or malice. You are penalizing them for failing to reach a particular level of conduct. That is the province of regulation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BigT

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.

Punitive damages have to bear some relationship to the actual damages, don’t they?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Idle_Thoughts

Let’s keep the hostilities down and remember that there is the Pit if anyone wants to have a Pit-like conversation about this subject with anyone else.

Something tells me that the disgust that people feel towards anyone that doesn’t think that Erin Andrews should get a jackpot jury award from this case is going to lead us inevitably to the pit.