And a message to everyone that a jury made up of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty results in a lot of stupidity.
I might have mentioned something like that once or twice. 
Although $55 Million seems high, I think we can make it work as follows.
The stalker can pay Erin if he has the money. If he doesn’t, then his future earnings are docked for Erin and her legal team. The state should castrate the stalker and the cock and balls go to Ms. Andrews and her legal team as partial payment of the settlement. Makes for a great deterrent to other would-be stalkers and I doubt there will be any more diner bragging after that.
Erin Andrews wanted millions from the hotel and the jury agreed. So here’s how we settle up. First of all, I assume Marriott had at least one lawyer in their employ who knew how to setup LLCs to utilize the first two Ls (Limited Liability). So the millions come out of one hotel only. The hotel that was sued should legally be forced to give Ms. Andrews and her legal team free lodging until the value of the amount of the legal settlement is paid for.
Furthermore, as the settlement is publicly known and other innkeepers can refuse service to anyone, I would expect there to be a de-facto blacklist against Ms. Andrews and her legal team from staying anywhere else that does not want to be sued for millions of dollars. I’m guessing that’s everywhere else on the planet.
Enjoy your free room, and remember to cover the peep hole!
So far, I haven’t seen any source that actually breaks the damages down. I am willing to bet that the majority of damages are punitive, though.
I will also guess that the defense lawyers harped excessively on proving that the breach of privacy didn’t actually harm the plaintiff much in monetary terms; which, while probably true, just pissed the jury off.
Wouldn’t reading the trial transcript be a more effective answer than looking at the video? And not something that would violate the privacy of anyone.
Given history, the damages probably will be reduced on appeal. So, the question is, what if any punitive damages are warranted? would people stop complaining if it got knocked down to $10 million?
The punitive damages certainly need to be high enough so that the hotel feels the need to fix the problem and not write off the amount as a cost of doing business, and so that other hotels with the same problem fix them before someone else is victimized.
Juries should be triers of fact not triers of how much shit to give to the plaintiff.
The trier of fact can determine if there was in fact negligence or malice, but I do not trust juries to be fair.
How much do you think that a similarly situated black woman would have gotten?
Well, you know what they say about great minds? They steal ideas from others.
That level of punitive damages is likely to get overturned on appeal.
Punitive damages are not meant to regulate that sort of activity. If hotels are supposed to keep that sort of stuff private, there ought to be a law about it, is there a law about it or are you just punishing them for failing to meet heretofore unarticulated expectations of privacy?
If you can prove some sort of deceit, malice, bad faith, or misconduct, then sure. But it seems like what you have is bad protocols and that can be changed with mere damages. Why do you need extraordinary damages to get hotels to fix this phone issue? Or are you saying that if anyone ever finds another flaw in hotel security, THAT hotels gets hit with punitive damages too?
I could see punitive damages being reduced to a low as a single dollar (or eliminated altogether). I don’t see how (given Supreme Court precedent) the punitive damages could be anywhere close to $55 million unless they found some sort of intentional misconduct.
What would be the point of that? It’s not as if she and only she wields this power.
Maybe it should be, but in our system it often is not. Blame the politicians who made “regulation” a dirty word.
Heh, sometimes I wonder whether the left in the US sees no possible limits on tort damages, and the right sees no possible limits on jail sentences - so in the future, there will be a system in which the entire upper class consists of lawyers and judges, the entire middle and working class consists of wardens and jail guards, and the entire underclass consists of prisoners. 
There will be no economic activity or freedom to speak of, but everything will be really safe. 
Yes, the problem is you don’t seem to have anything useful for the current situation, just ideas for far future implementation.
Sure, better a strong regulatory body than crapshoot jury lotteries, I can go for that.
But even assuming you can get lawmakers to actually go along with “more government is better in this case” legislation (good luck with that in the current climate), and they start working on plans right now, it’ll be what, maybe 2020 by the time we start seeing full enforcement of whatever we come up with?
So what do we do until then? Are you saying there should be no remedy for corporate maleficence at all until a formal government regulatory body is put in place?
Below are the damages Andrews sued for in her Third Amended Petition. I can’t find the jury charge to determine what what causes of actions (see below) they found defendants at fault for and the amount they they awarded for the particular damages. None of these are punitive, however, and according to Andrews lawsuit she wasn’t asking for any punitive damages.
Causes of Action against Hotel: She sued for (1) Negligence, (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (3) Invasion of Privacy,
Past & Future Damages:
Severe and permanent emotional distress
embarrassment
medical expenses (think shrink)
expenses/damages related to unauthorized use of her image
The key is most likely future damages. This will forever be on the internet and she’ll be “damaged” by it every day for the rest of her life. She’s young, healthy, and will likely live a long time and be in the public spotlight because her job requires it. The effect of the damage is amplified via internet and her job description. So, many many people (17 million views so far) have seen the nudes, and many will continue to see them, and many will continue to see her in the spotlight and associate her with the nudes. $27 million seems fine, hopefully the hotel owner has insurance to settle it or the ins will pay the max of the policy and hotel owner will declare bankruptcy regarding the rest.
Causes of Actions against Stalker: same as above plus Public Disclosure of Private Facts; same damages.
I’m not sure if any damages are capped by TN tort reform statutes.
As I’ve said a couple of times, it would be helpful to look at international comparisons. Canada, for example, has a regulatory system similar to that of the US, but its legal system is very different - you don’t see massive jury awards in civil cases, for a number of reasons.
Canada is effectively “doing nothing” specific about this particular problem, in the way you state. There is “no remedy for corporate maleficence at all”, other than (say) actual compensatory damages in a lawsuit, or attracting unfriendly regulatory attention. Damages for pain & suffering are “capped” here, at a pifflingly low level (around $360,000) specifically to avoid runaway insurance premium problems:
http://www.lindsayllp.ca/articles/the-history-and-treatment-of-damages-in-canada/
Note: this is in Canadian dollars! Adjust as needed for US currency.
There are cases that exceed the “cap”, but they are rare, and even those that exceed the “cap” do not soar to US levels. Never would you see $55 million awarded for breach of privacy, however traumatic. It would never happen.
Is Canada notably less safe than the US as a result? Has corporate malfeasance run rampant in the absence of a US-style system of litigation? I’ve simply not seen that argued.
Very interesting, and I thank you for looking it up.
Not that I accept that these figures for damages make sense, of course. 
They probably will not survive appeal … but still.
If no damages were awarded as punitive damages, that makes nonsense of the claim that they were awarded to redress future corporate malfeasance. Presumably, the jury actually thought these were truly compensatory.
It Erin Andrews’ nude video is worth $55 million in damages, than what about the Hulk Hogan hardcore sex tape posted by Gawker? $100 million? A billion? They didn’t accidentally contribute to the release of the video, they deliberately posted it by themselves.
Presumably. Juries are the most unpredictable thing in the Universe, though. They can up compensatory damages to “punish” even when they are not allowed to. Remember, compensatory means now and in the future ($1mil/year damage for 55years of expected life = typical jury calculation; or big past damage + $250k/year for 30 years, ect. ect.). I’m positive a similar model was presented to them at trial by the Plaintiff. Andrews only gets one shot at this, so there’s a lot of speculation towards future damages 20-30 years down the line. Andrews is a dream Plaintiff as far as sympathy goes.
Things happen due to logical consequence, there doesn’t need to be any other point. If an ex-con applies for a job and doesn’t get it, that doesn’t mean the other job candidates don’t possess an ability to embezzle.
If I’m an innkeep and aware of this story and Erin Andrews tries to book a room, the logical reaction from a risk-adverse perspective is to tell her no rooms are available.