"According to the lawsuit, Andrews said the hotel was guilty of negligence for, among other things, allowing Barrett to know that Andrews was staying in the hotel and then allowing him to book a room next to her own. Andrews was in Nashville to cover a Vanderbilt University football game.
She also said the hotel was negligent for failing to discover Barrett altered the peephole of the plaintiff’s hotel room door, allowing the videos to be taken.
The suit said the videotaping and posting of the nude images continues to cause Andrews “great emotional distress and embarrassment.”
Is this a crime worthy of such a suit?
Despite her hotness, I suspect the market value of a clear video would be worth much less. Why should this go to trial?
Well, I can google “Erin Andrews nude” and see all her goodies. Great ass, and she appears to shave her pubes. She did not consent to the pictures being taken, nor did she consent to them being published. How much would it be worth to you to not have unknown thousands jacking off to your pictures on a nightly basis?
Don’t hotels have a legal obligation to keep guests’ information confidential? I know someone that has worked front desk, and she says that if someone called to ask if so-and-so had a room there, that she was unable to verify it. So, if that is indeed the case, I think they should have to pay a lot of money for violating that confidentiality.
I don’t think so, at least not for regular people. I have called the front desk and asked for someone’s room many times. They usually will not provide the room number, but they will ring the room, and let me talk to the person. Happens frequently at conventions and such, trying to get together for dinner or whatever.
Then in my mind it would come down to whether the hotel should have reasonably known that the guy had removed the peephole and was taping through the hole. To me, it would depend on how obvious it was, how long it went on, etc. I can see them being responsible for inspecting the outside of the room doors on a regular basis as being reasonable.
That’s just the way the game is played. In my jurisdiction, you cannot receive more than you asked for in the lawsuit. If the jury comes in higher, the award is reduced to the amount in the pleadings–thus you plead a big number, or do not specify a number. Also gives room to negotiate a settlement—and this case will likely settle before trial, as most do.
How could he alter the peephole without access to her room? You have to be on the inside part to get that off. Don’t you?
It depends on what methods that he used to get the room. If he called and claimed to be a colleague of hers and was claiming to confirm her room or request the room next to her for business, well, I can see them falling for that. (even though that would be stupid)
But the door and the videoing? That’s pretty lax security.
“Despite her hotness, I suspect the market value of a clear video would be worth much less. Why should this go to trial?”
I don’t know the case, so I don’t know to what extent the hotel is guilty, but AFAIK (a) the non-punitive damages are supposed to make up for the victim’s loss, (and also to prevent the perpetrator benefitting, but since they rarely benefit more than the victim loses, it doesn’t matter). If Mary steals a $100,000 car and sells it for scrap for $500, the owner can sue for $100,000, not just $500. Obviously the case here is subjective – no amount of money can put the images away again, but she’ll lose either whatever damage to her career there is, or the – probably universal – disgust to know a lot of people are ogling you without your permission. And (b) why limit it to non-punitive damages? If the hotel didn’t do anything deliberately wrong, those may not be high, but surely a court will decide?
God, what a horrible story. It makes me feel sick to my stomach to think of my privacy being invaded like that, and those images being out there for the rest of of my life for my kids, coworkers, guys I might want to date, potential stalkers, boss, etc. to see, and there is nothing I can ever do to get that back.
You guys have female relatives, right? Don’t you think you’d be pissed if someone, say, taped a peeping tom picture of your naked sister in the boy’s locker room of the local high school?
This sort of thing is just a really huge violation, especially when you know that you were targeted for it. I mean, it’s one thing if some rando is looking through your open windows. But it’s chilling to the bone to think of someone knowing you, seeking you out, and making preparations to do this to you. It disrupts your sense of safety. I imagine she’ll have a period of time where she has trouble sleeping, may have trouble with feeling sexually safe, etc. There is a bit of a threat to the whole thing- the next step in this rape, you know?
Anyway, if I kidnap you and drag you to my house, put a gun to your head and…make you mow my lawn…should a judge call it even if I give you ten bucks for your time?
If I was stalking and filming people without their knowledge, I sure wouldn’t put it online. Not only is it taking it several steps too far, but the likelihood of being caught and imprisoned is increased.
I imagine this goes on a lot where nobody ever finds out.
The story is horrible, the asshole who did it justifiably got years behind bars–but I’m just not seeing the hotel’s responsibility. What legal liability do they have to keep guest information confidential? That seems the only legitimate beef. Not noticing that the door is tampered with? Please. That’s very silly: hotels, to the best of my knowledge, don’t normally perform door-security sweeps on rooms, and I don’t think this sort of thing is sufficiently common to warrant such sweeps in the future, much less requiring them retroactively.
Can you possibly be serious? She’s a person with a right to privacy and an expectation that when she’s in her hotel room, there’s not some pervy jagoff outside spying on her. The question raised above was relevant: how would you feel if someone posted nude spy footage of your mother or sister online?
Actually, I don’t think that’s the relevant question. The relevant question is this: would such a large number of people be traumatized by this that we should as a society take steps to minimize that trauma?
Personally I think I’d be mildly creeped out if I were the victim of this crime, but only mildly. But my feelings on the subject only matter if I am the victim. What really matter are:
The feelings of the actual victim; and
Whether these feelings are sufficiently common and predictable that we should, as a society, act on them.