I would be angry, but not damaged, nor would my mother or sister, as a result of the publication. Their rights to the control of their images would have been violated, hence the punitive damages. In other words, the perpetrator should be punished for the bad act, but the ‘victim’ is not damaged. I would be more willing to accept the death penalty for punishment than giving money to someone because they feel bad.
ETA: Ok, that sounds really bad. It’s an exagerration. I just don’t like compensating people for ‘emotional damage’. If there’s a just basis for that, plenty of people owe me a ton of money. But I don’t see it. This chicklet who wanted everyone on earth to ogle her body while wearing scraps of clothing is now claiming great damage because she feels icky that people saw her naked.
I think people may be misunderstanding how compensatory damages work. “Pain and suffering” falls under compensatory damages, not punitive damages. While it is certainly a subjective judgment, I’d say having nude photos of someone taken without her consent and put on the Internet moves the damages meter above “nothing,” factoring in the humiliation associated with it.
I’d think hotel personnel, exercising common sense caution, would be wary of someone asking for a celebrity woman’s room, and then asking for the room next door. The hotel, it seems to me, has some culpability here. And that’s all you need–culpability greater than “none.” That’s why lawsuits name everybody in creation, especially those with deep pockets. Unless the party sued is blameless, he’s got problems.
So, I would assess the hotel’s culpability at > 0%. Pain and suffering damages? I don’t know. Seven figures doesn’t seem crazy to me. This will get settled.
Wait, I’m confused. Isn’t this woman a broadcast journalist, and not a swimsuit model? When did she “want everyone on earth to ogle her body while wearing scraps of clothing?”
I think that’s a reference to her stint on “Dancing With the Stars.” I’ve heard that before, and I think it’s a cheap shot. How that minimizes the damage of the other incident, or somehow justifies it, or something, is beyond me. “Hey, she wore a bikini once. Don’t tell me that peephole business was traumatic.”
There’s also the rumor (that sprang up after these pictures first came out) that she planned this with the photographer to drum up some “there’s so such thing as bad publicity” publicity.
But that’s almost certainly a load of crap and stems from the fact that part of the video features her singing into a hairbrush while supposedly “posing” for the camera.
Since there is no evidence (other than the complaint) that hotel staff told Barrett that Andrews was staying there, I don’t see how the hotel has any exposure at all. I think it’s telling that Andrews asserts that the hotel “allowed him to know”.
I think it’s more telling still that she wants $4 million in damages from the perp and $6 million from Marriott.
How long does it take to reverse a peephole? The fact that this guy could figure out her room and then manage to switch the peephole in such a way that it was unnoticeable to Andrews doesn’t look good for the hotel’s innocence.
They’ll be forced to pay something. As they should be.
My guess is that older women, maybe a bit “past their prime” themselves, will see Ms. Andrews’ various skimpy costumes and outfits that she has appeared publicly on TV in (some of which are linked above) and because of a combination of (subconscious?) jealousy and old-fashioned moralizing might be inclined to think that she somehow “had it coming” for flaunting her sizable assets in front of the whole wide world…
As an older frumpy woman, I have to agree with Justin_Bailey. The whole idea of having someone photograph me through a peephole, and then having those pictures available on the internet forever, is so disgusting that I would have no problem awarding the whole $10 million assuming there was evidence of actual negligence by the hotel. The fact that the victim in this case is an attractive celebrity would have no bearing on my feelings.
I think it would be primarily men who would see this as no big deal, or not be able to differentiate between choosing to pose in a bikini and having naked pictures taken without your consent.
I wouldn’t be so quick to paint with such a broad brush. I think that most men get it that it’s not cool to reverse a peephole to spy on someone and take pictures of them naked.
She has posed for numerous pictures in provocative clothing. That is not a justification for someone to violate her privacy. It simply speaks to the level of ‘emotional damage’ she claims to have endured. She has not been humiliated by selling the image of her body in select circumstances, only in a case she did not control did she claim to suffer. I don’t find an objective measure of damage that can be monetarily compensated based on her emotional response. It is sufficient to provide punitive compensation for the wrongful acts commited.
Consider the case of a Muslim woman who through choice has kept her face hidden behind a burlap bag all her life. If someone came by and ripped off her mask exposing her face should she be compensated in millions of dollars? She may have suffered far more humiliation than the sports mannequin did, but how could that be measured and a reasonable assessment of damage be made? I know our court systems operate on the basis that this can be done, but I doubt anyone likes the way this system works. And the end result has been an assault on the rights of all people who may have valid claims of damages.
I don’t think that signifies at all. Most women have no problem wearing a bikini to a public beach, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be horrified if naked pictures of them were posted on the internet.
I understand what TriPolar’s getting at. I’ve heard a movie reviewer refer to it as the “Nipple Rule.” The rule states that most actresses/entertainers are comfortable appearing on screen or in a magazine spread without a stitch of clothing as long as their nipples are covered. But the second a producer asks them to show their nipples, they start talking about the objectification of women in entertainment and how they’re more than their body and on and on.
It sounds ridiculous, but you can find a ton of examples in the entertainment world.
So what? Why should people be compensated for being horrified? And how do I know any one of them is actually horrified, or just saying so to make money? If they were physically injured I could make a reasonable estimate of the amount of pain they endured. No such thing can be done to evaluate the level of emotional distress a person endures.
