Do you really think she will get $55 million? Do you think she’ll get anywhere close to that? I strongly doubt that.
And as far as crying goes, I think you may be greatly underestimating the value (not financial value - but values that are far more than what you may think crying is worth). Have you seen the first episode of Season 2 of Agent Carter? There is a great moment there when a prisoner says, “We both know there are currencies far more valuable then money.” And she is correct about that. A person’s self-image and sense of self-worth are just every bit as important as the size of their bank accounts.
When someone cries in private, it means they are suffering a pain to their core. I’m having trouble describing this because on the one hand, it is so easy to make it seem like nothing. But on the other hand, if you have ever suffered serious emotional pain from the loss of a loved one or some deep harm to your self-image, that pain is close to being very similar to some serious physical pain.
I’m having great difficulty finding the words to express this. I hope someone else will come in and explain this in a way that will mean something to you. The kind of pain I would like you to imagine is really and truly just as bad as some of the worst physical pain you will ever feel in your lifetime.
Have you ever been in love? Did the person you love ever tell you they were leaving you for someone else? Did you believe they loved you back but … they somehow betrayed you?
What is the worst kind of physical pain you have ever experienced?
If you are living you life and feeling good about yourself and then - all of a sudden - you are made to look like a fool in public and everywhere you go, you can hear people laughing at you behind your back, that kind of pain is really just as bad as physical pain.
Erin Davis must suffer some terrible pain whenever she is out in public and people point and snicker at her. I’m just at a loss for words how to describe this.
Saying the incident is “inconsequential” just reveals the speaker is oblivious to how painful such an “inconsequential” thing can be. It’s like telling a woman groped on a bus that’s it’s nothing, it’s not like she was raped or anything, someone just stuck their hand down her cleavage or grabbed her crotch - what’s the fuss?
It’s NOT inconsequential, it’s a violation. And apparently a jury agreed with that. I’m with the camp that says the amount awarded is pretty damn high, but I’m also with the group that thinks that amount is going to be reduced on appeal or in an out-of-court settlement.
I just can’t figure out what decade you’re posting from. I literally can’t remember the last time I made a hotel reservation that involved interacting with any human being capable of making a decision. When I make personal travel reservations, I do it entirely online, and the question of whether a room is available is settled long before I enter any information that would identify me.
And when I travel for business, I’m not even involved. I send an e-mail to a man named Jim, with my travel dates and destinations, and he arranges the whole thing with one of the many hotels that have longstanding business arrangements with my company. I am certain that Erin Andrews hasn’t made a business travel reservation in her entire career. There is a producer at ESPN who makes hundreds of reservations - hers included - all at once. For any hotel to single out Miss Andrews would be incredibly obvious to that producer. You’d lose all of ESPN - and that’s a TON of rooms each year - and they’d certainly publicize what you did, which would lead to the social media blowback that would finish you off.
I can’t figure out how you think it would work any other way.
Fame begets more fame, prestige, and ultimately more money. For example, if she wrote a book, a lot of people would buy it only because they heard about the incident/fallout, who wouldn’t have otherwise. She might book other appearances just to talk about it. Maybe she gets a bunch more Twitter followers (and yeah, that can be monetized). Simply being more well-known gives her more leverage on getting jobs and demanding a higher salary; it’s still show-business.
The old saying about any press being good press etc. So yes, it creates a lot of opportunities for her to potentially monetize on but even if she didn’t and even absent the judgment, I still very highly doubt this incident would have hurt her career in any way monetarily.
I mentioned this to my wife a lawyer who teaches business law, and in the past has taught hospitality law and been on the hospitality school board of advisors. She was familiar with this lawsuit, but did not know the verdict was in. In short, she said it was a huge violation of well-established innkeeper’s liability, such that a verdict for Andrews was a no brainer. When I asked her to guess at the size of the verdict, she guessed “a couple million.” When I told her 55, she matter-of-factly said it depends on the size of the defendant’s business, and how large punitives needed to be to serve their purpose.
According to her, the more interesting question was whether punitives such as this should be a “windfall” for the claimant, or whether they should revert to the state a la civil penalties.
Just wanted to toss this out from someone who has a little experience in hospitality and business law.
That’s true - it is a violation, but so so far from a $55 million one that it just seems inconsequential compared to the ridiculously disproportionate reward. It might be worth a few thousand bucks, max.
It may not be worth $55 million, but apparently it’s worth days of complaints and arguments from people. :rolleyes:
Hey, guys. She got filmed, sued, and won $55 million specifically because people want to see EA naked, and EA didn’t want anybody except her husband to see her that way. That’s it. Period.
Sorry if it pisses you off that no jury would award you $55, much less $55m, if someone filmed your junk and uploaded it to Xhamster without you knowing it, but that’s the breaks.
So, please: deal with it, and move on with your life. If you honestly believe this isn’t worth $55m, then why is this worth the time you’re dedicating to this?
I, too, assumed an award of this magnitude had to be mostly punitive damages, and argued - extensively - that such a punitive damages regime was a bad idea for various reasons.
Only problem is that, according to others upthread who have allegedly read the actual claim, the claim did not include a claim for punitive damages. The $55 million was, allegedly, all “compensatory”.
In other words, the jury thought that an invasion of privacy here actually caused (or will cause) $55 million in harm to the plaintiff.
Now, I don’t doubt for a second that any reasonable person would admit that having one’s nude picture, taken without one’s consent by some stalker creep, would be incredibly hurtful, and worthy of a damages award. Nor do I doubt that the jury had good reason to find the hotel negligent in allowing said creep to carry out his plan.
However, the sheer quantum of this compensatory damages award is hard to believe. Compare it to other compensatory awards - people who have been negligently or maliciously rendered quadriplegic, or (as noted upthread) shot dead, have received less, by an order of magnitude!
Now, no doubt, an appeal court will have its say. But still.
No, the perpetrator’s punishment is a criminal one, has been dealt with, and nobody has disputed the appropriateness of that. We’re still talking about the liability of the hotel here, and the appropriateness of her getting such a massive payday from them.
That’s not the point. If a jury awarded me two hundred zillion dollars because the zipper on my pants came undone, it would be excessive regardless of the pants company’s inability to actually pay me two hundred zillion dollars.
What a negligence verdict says is that they had a duty of care to prevent it from happening and they breached that duty of care, so they’re responsible for the consequences.
I’ve already seen a quote from a juror stating that juror wanted to send a message with the size of the damages. That’s moving away from compensatory into punitive damages. Which the jury should not do since they were not asked to punish anyone. But what are you going to do.
itd be nice to see the jury charge where the jury filled out how the damages were awarded. The jury would put a separate figure for past embarrassment, future embarrassment, past medical, future medical, ect. Then add them all up to get to $55mil.
Do we know for a fact that a court cannot impose damages above and beyond those requested in the plaintiff’s claim? For all I know this jurisdiction actually proscribes plaintiffs from requesting punitive damages, leaving it to the sole discretion of the judge and/or jury hearing the case.
Yes? And the argument is about the consequences of a jury’s ability to reach such a verdict in such a case.
As discussed in greater detail upthread, massive jury verdicts in civil cases have significant social impact - which is not limited to the parties directly involved in the particular case.
Of course, that impact is largely invisible to the ordinary newspaper-reader. Doesn’t mean it is not there.
On doing some Googling, it seems I may be on to something. In some states, plaintiffs are prohibited from requesting punitive damages in their initial claims; they may do so only at later stages of the trial, once certain conditions have been met. For example, a law firm in Colorado says that “In Colorado, an injury victim cannot request punitive damages until a verdict is reached.” The California Code of Civil Procedure says that in health care cases, it is prohibited to make claims for punitive damages until a trial court has ruled on the matter.