Poor Erin Andrews...

[Coach34]

suing Marriot for 75MM because of the video that was taken of her. Psychological damages. Wow

[Ralph]

Will be interesting to see how the jury views the 4-5 endorsements she got bc of the video. Without question her privacy was egregiously invaded and that scumbag served 30 months, but the damages amounting to $75mm will be tough to prove when she's received endorsements bc of it. If she claimed it forced her out of her career bc she was embarrassed of the spotlight on the video, then she would stand a much better chance imo.

[Thick]

She turned the tears up a notch on the stand.

[lastmajordog]

suing Marriot for 75MM because of the video that was taken of her. Psychological damages. Wow

Yes but look how many male mental psychees she helped by assisting in releasing their.......ENDORPHINS......

[DawgNamedScuba]

I don't recall those photos being leaked or did I miss the memo?

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

She has a claim. Her privacy was violated in their hotel. I hope she gets every penny

[drunkernhelldawg]

She has a claim. Her privacy was violated in their hotel. I hope she gets every penny

I agree. It's not about how rich or successful somebody is. It's about the fact that she was violated in a major way. It's unbelievable that the hotel would honor a guest's request for a room next to hers. Either an imbecile at the desk or a totally screwed up policy. I mean, I assume my room number is secret unless I give consent for it to be shared.

[TrapGame]

I don't recall those photos being leaked or did I miss the memo?

You missed them.

Very grainy but it was obvious she doesn't weed the garden often...if ya know what I mean. I know she has every right to be pissed and feel violated but she's got a killer body.

[starkvegasdawg]

I don't recall those photos being leaked or did I miss the memo?

You missed the memo.

[Bully13]

I don't see how the hotel is liable. The person who did it is liable. Unless she requested no neighbors.

[MabenMaroon]

Definitely got no problem with her suing, the hotel appears to have been irresponsibly negligent if not possibly knowingly malicious. And if found guilty they should be severely punished.
However, I don't have much sympathy for Ms Andrews as she has made a tremendous amount of money from her career and this "embarrassment" opened doors beyond the sports journalism world and got her noticed outside of the sports world. And she has often come across as an arrogant bitch prior to this incident, the court room boohoo seemed a more than a tad contrived or staged and didn't come across as very genuine.

[TheRef]

I don't see how the hotel is liable. The person who did it is liable. Unless she requested no neighbors.

The hotel is liable because he was able to get inside the room, switch around the peephole, and use the reversed peephole to shoot the video. THAT is how the hotel is liable.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Definitely got no problem with her suing, the hotel appears to have been irresponsibly negligent if not possibly knowingly malicious. And if found guilty they should be severely punished.
However, I don't have much sympathy for Ms Andrews as she has made a tremendous amount of money from her career and this "embarrassment" opened doors beyond the sports journalism world and got her noticed outside of the sports world. And she has often come across as an arrogant bitch prior to this incident, the court room boohoo seemed a more than a tad contrived or staged and didn't come across as very genuine.

So, you think it's an act when she says that the incident has made her feel incredibly insecure in hotel rooms? To me, that fact alone is severely consequential for her as her profession demands heavy travel.

[Coach34]

The hotel is liable because he was able to get inside the room, switch around the peephole, and use the reversed peephole to shoot the video. THAT is how the hotel is liable.

Thats the first I've heard of this. I'm willing to bet 98% of people didnt know that happened

[PassInterference]

I only heard a minute of a TV report. I was shocked some random guy asked the hotel to put him in a room next to Erin Andrews and they said OK. That is gross negligence and the hotel should pay for that.

Maybe there is more to it. Maybe the guy faked an ESPN badge and tricked the hotel.

But right now it is sounding bad for the hotel.

[TheRef]

Thats the first I've heard of this. I'm willing to bet 98% of people didnt know that happened

Yeah, that was revealed in court. He used a peephole that was reversed in order to shoot the video. The ONLY way to do that is if you can get inside the room to switch out both sides of the peephole.

[Johnson85]

The hotel is liable because he was able to get inside the room, switch around the peephole, and use the reversed peephole to shoot the video. THAT is how the hotel is liable.

Did not realize that. Thought she was in an old hotel that actually had a key hole and that the film was made through the key hole. Don't know why I thought that; guess I should have realized that wasn't it.

Regardless of how he filmed, the hotel should definitely be liable, but I think the $75M is a little ridiculous if there wasn't a malicious act.

[TrapGame]

If he had unfettered access to her room he could have raped her. The hotel is in deep shit. And I'm surprised at ESPN asking Erin to prove it was not a PR stunt before they took her side.

[missouridawg]

I don't see how the hotel is liable. The person who did it is liable. Unless she requested no neighbors.

The hotel granted a request to be located next to her room. The hotel should never tell any guest what room someone is staying in.

[missouridawg]

Yeah, that was revealed in court. He used a peephole that was reversed in order to shoot the video. The ONLY way to do that is if you can get inside the room to switch out both sides of the peephole.

I always thought the video was shot through a hole drilled in the wall.

[TheRef]

I always thought the video was shot through a hole drilled in the wall.

I was told Peephole....but who knows.

[Dawgtini]

Yeah, that was revealed in court. He used a peephole that was reversed in order to shoot the video. The ONLY way to do that is if you can get inside the room to switch out both sides of the peephole.

It was revealed way before court. I didn't watch the video when it hit the web, but I did do some research to understand the peephole reversal .... also learned there are peepholes that work both ways, as well as peephole cameras.

[Dawgtini]

I was told Peephole....but who knows.

It was a reversed peephole. It's why the image looks distorted like it does (yes, I have seen some screen grabs).

[jumbo]

One of Mariott's defense arguments was that she became a lot more famous because of this incident. Which may be true, but that's pretty awful to try and argue that.

[Bully13]

The hotel is liable because he was able to get inside the room, switch around the peephole, and use the reversed peephole to shoot the video. THAT is how the hotel is liable.

How was he allowed to get in? How did he get a key?

[bulldogcountry1]

Yeah, that was revealed in court. He used a peephole that was reversed in order to shoot the video. The ONLY way to do that is if you can get inside the room to switch out both sides of the peephole.

The way you capped "ONLY" is a bit scary, ref. Sounds like a man speaking from experience.

[jumbo]

How was he allowed to get in? How did he get a key?


He wasn't allowed to get in (to my knowledge) but he specifically asked for a room next to EAs and they said ok and gave it to him.

[blacklistedbully]

Hold on, what I have heard is this:

The guy accessed a hotel phone asking to be connected to EA's phone. The hotel operator would have no reason to not honor the request from an inside phone. This is why most celebrities do not give their true name when checking in.

The dude was then apparently able to use the phone system to see which room the call got transferred to, then when he went to check in he requested, not the room next to EA, but the room # he had figured out was next to hers. Again, not reason for the hotel clerk to not honor his request for a specific room #. Then the guy cut out the existing peephole and installed his own, modified one, unbeknownst to the hotel.

If these are not the facts, then I welcome correction and would likely change my opinion.

In any case, EA has suffered no financial damages, in fact she has done much better, so she is relying on, "emotional trauma" for her damages. I still have a problem on a couple of levels.

First, the amount they are demanding is,IMO obscene. Secondly, I offer this:

The perpetrator went to prison for his crime.

And if you think 2.5 years in prison isn't a particularly bad thing for what he did, I think you're nuts! Not only are you getting turned into somebody's girlfriend on a regular basis, but your life is forever altered in a very bad way.

Any time he tires to apply for a job he not only has to point out he is a convicted felon, but because of the celebrity factor of his victim, any potential employer would likely know about what he did and consider him sneaky and untrustworthy. That dude's life is messed up permanently.

Care to give any thought to how much worse his life is than Erin's now? Sure, he deserves it for what he did, and I'm in no way excusing his behavior, but let's dispense with this ridiculous notion that the guy was somehow lightly punished for taking that grainy video and attempting to make money by posting it online.

What he did was a terrible invasion of her privacy and a crime. It was not rape. It was not murder. It was not armed robbery. It was not child pornography. It wasn't that far off from what paparazzi do every day, invading privacy, but this time with a very grainy nude video.

As far as damages go, EA is far better off financially than she ever would have been had this incident not happened. No financial loss, in fact a financial gain on her part.

Public perception? Rather than public humiliation, EA has realized a well-spring of support. The public overwhelming got behind her, as did all her professional colleagues.

In my opinion, justice was served for her when the guy was sent to prison for 1.5 years and became, forever, a convicted felon. The world knows who he is and considers him a sleazy SOB.

To the extent that the hotel staff screwed up, I'm happy to have them be penalized appropriately based on the facts. That's what punitive damages are for. But $75 million?? Are you kidding me?

Even recognizing plaintiffs often ask for more than they really expect to receive, that's so far out of whack, IMO that it insults the senses, and reeks of a money-grab.

As far as EA's emotional scars, I can't believe any woman who had spent her career in sports media, interviewing athletes in various states of undress in locker rooms would be so thin-skinned.

Does anybody remember the furor she caused in 2008, when she went into a locker room dressed in a skimpy outfit, with witnesses claiming she, "placed her hand suggestively on Alfonso Soriano's left bicep" and generally "playing the sexpot."?

Andrews herself called the hubbub over her low-cut dress "sad" and told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that "when there's a big game between the Cubs and Brewers going on, it's sad that [my body] is what their focus is on."

Well, I guess she really wants the focus on her exposed body now, huh?

Fellow female sports journalist Trenni Kusnierek said at the time, "Erin is a beautiful girl with a body I'd kill for. I know she's hotter than me. But, she'd still be better looking in a professional outfit, not just in glorified lingerie. As a female in the same business, I wish she'd realize how damaging it is to an entire gender when she carries herself in that manner. It sets us all back to a time where female sports reporters were all seen as husband hunters who were only in the business to catch a cheap glance."

None of this is to excuse the behavior of the perpetrator, but it does, I think, bring into question EA's authenticity and motivation when it comes to all these, "emotional scars" she's tearfully complaining about years later.

Again, I'm glad the guy got convicted, and I do hope the hotel gets what's coming to them in a proportionally correct manner after all the facts come out. But I can't escape the feeling, at this point, that the Andrews family is playing this up in a big show to get even richer than they already are.

Whatever negligence is involved by the hotel staff, the overwhelming fault lies with the guy who took advantage and went to prison for it. THAT is justice.

Had EA not shown an ability to flourish after the incident, and had shown real financial damage, then I'd be all for her getting a figure that would equate to the actual financial harm done, plus some extra appropriate punitive award. But tens of millions of dollars???

BS

[Bully13]

The hotel granted a request to be located next to her room. The hotel should never tell any guest what room someone is staying in.

The hotel person really screwed up then. Would still like to know how he got in though.

[Dawg61]

She has nice tits. $10 mm is fair. $75 mm? gtfo

[Maroonandwhite]

Wow. I would hate for this sort of thing to happen to female relatives in my or your families. Some of these reactions are sad.

[TrapGame]

Wow. I would hate for this sort of thing to happen to female relatives in my or your families. Some of these reactions are sad.

Welcome to the internet.

[starkvegasdawg]

She has nice tits. $10 mm is fair. $75 mm? gtfo

Speaking of which...who is that in your avatar now?

[Dawg61]

Wow. I would hate for this sort of thing to happen to female relatives in my or your families. Some of these reactions are sad.

$75 million though in a world were it takes 2 seconds to access hardcore porn with women hotter than Miss Andrews. I think she's grossly overestimating how many people actually saw her body. They took down the video after only a couple hours. She's going to get gawked at no matter what. Sounds to me like she's never been comfortable with fame for being a beautiful woman. 99.9% of women would kill to look like her.

[Dawg61]

Speaking of which...who is that in your avatar now?

A hot girl with a better body than Erin who won't sue for $75 mill when you see her tits

[PassInterference]

Good post, blacklist.

Is the size of the defendant (the hotel) a factor in the size of punitive damages? $75M is a lot to me and you, but peanuts for a Hilton, or whatever the hotel was.

[archdog]

Wow. I would hate for this sort of thing to happen to female relatives in my or your families. Some of these reactions are sad.

If it happened to my wife or daughter, I would be more ticked at the 1.5 year sentence that will probably be reduced to like 4 months or something. The hotel really didn't do anything malicious from what I have read on here and in other places. 75mm is retarded even for our justice system. Other than firing everyone involved that allowed that guy into the room next to her, not really sure what the hotel corporation could do to make it right. Paying her tons of money for the oversight of 3-5 employees and security is really overkill.

Now if the hotel employees changed the peep hole in question for the guy as a co-conspiritor, then hammer the hotel. Still 75 million is a bit too crazy.

[dawgs]

Will be interesting to see how the jury views the 4-5 endorsements she got bc of the video. Without question her privacy was egregiously invaded and that scumbag served 30 months, but the damages amounting to $75mm will be tough to prove when she's received endorsements bc of it. If she claimed it forced her out of her career bc she was embarrassed of the spotlight on the video, then she would stand a much better chance imo.

Um if Marriott gave out her room number to a stalker, they absolutely should pay punitive damages to ensure it never happens to anyone again. Tbh Marriott is lucky that all that happened was the video. Imagine if the guy had abducted her or raped her or killed her. Punitive damages are there to punish a defendant when they have done something wrong. $75M (if that's what she gets) isn't a huge hit for an international corporation like Marriott. If they only had to pay a few hundred grand or even a few million in damages, then they aren't really suffering for their mistake/role in the whole thing.

[missouridawg]

You people claiming $75mil is outrageous have probably never had your peace of mind stolen. Peace of mind is an invaluable asset. Even moreso for women.

This isn't about her body making money. It's about her ability to live her life and do her job without wondering if someone is stalking her to film her naked, illegally.

The guy who purported this crimes deserves much more than 1.5 years in my opinion. A crime like this should ruin the perpetrators life.

[DCdawg]

Good post, blacklist.

Is the size of the defendant (the hotel) a factor in the size of punitive damages? $75M is a lot to me and you, but peanuts for a Hilton, or whatever the hotel was.

I could be mistaken but I read that the defendant is the hotel operator in this case and not Marriot's corporate office. If that is the case, the sum of money is much larger than it would be if the corporation were paying.

[RougeDawg]

So, you think it's an act when she says that the incident has made her feel incredibly insecure in hotel rooms? To me, that fact alone is severely consequential for her as her profession demands heavy travel.

Hell listening to people explain away trump and make sissified posts like this make me feel extremely insecure about venturing out amongst the general public. If I based my entire life and mental state on a few off nuttjobs, then I'd be suing every state and national govt entity for all but eliminating mental health funding. Essentially the lack of funding and oversight over the mentally unstable around us puts us all at risks. Does this therefore grant me the right to sue for even the slightest insignificant offensive act or intrusion into my privacy for a preposterous sum of money?

The govt can't control every action of every individual at all times. We expect to hold a private business to this impossible standard? Suits like this are part of the reason this nation is currently swirling down the shitter. Common sense and logic are not so common these days. The majority of the population thinks and reacts on emotion, which more times than not is wrong, yet everyone wonders why we are surrounded by thin skinned butt hurt pussified pansies.

The responsible party had been convicted and is paying his time. I'd let someone film me naked for a month to have the opportunities and prosperity that poor wittle Erin has had to so tragically endure since this incident. I hope the next president suggests a change in our country name to UPSA. United Pansy States of America.

[War Machine Dawg]

Definitely got no problem with her suing, the hotel appears to have been irresponsibly negligent if not possibly knowingly malicious. And if found guilty they should be severely punished.
However, I don't have much sympathy for Ms Andrews as she has made a tremendous amount of money from her career and this "embarrassment" opened doors beyond the sports journalism world and got her noticed outside of the sports world. And she has often come across as an arrogant bitch prior to this incident, the court room boohoo seemed a more than a tad contrived or staged and didn't come across as very genuine.

You are an idiot. Violating someone's privacy like that is completely inexcusable. It's one thing to put it out there yourself, whether intentional (think Playboy) or unintentional (think sex tape). It's a completely different animal to have a random stranger film your most private moments and leak them online. But hey, EA is hot, so no harm, no foul right? God save us from dumbasses like you.

I'd almost hope you're married and someone did to your wife what was done to EA so you could experience a portion of that hell. But I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, much less a random stranger on a message board I have no ill will toward.

[dawgs]

$75 million though in a world were it takes 2 seconds to access hardcore porn with women hotter than Miss Andrews. I think she's grossly overestimating how many people actually saw her body. They took down the video after only a couple hours. She's going to get gawked at no matter what. Sounds to me like she's never been comfortable with fame for being a beautiful woman. 99.9% of women would kill to look like her.

It's the Internet bro, you can find that video and the pics in 3 seconds right now. They'll never disappear. Also, how hot you think she is has literally less than 0 relevance to this story.

[War Machine Dawg]

You people claiming $75mil is outrageous have probably never had your peace of mind stolen. Peace of mind is an invaluable asset. Even moreso for women.

This isn't about her body making money. It's about her ability to live her life and do her job without wondering if someone is stalking her to film her naked, illegally.

The guy who purported this crimes deserves much more than 1.5 years in my opinion. A crime like this should ruin the perpetrators life.

You get it.

[Johnson85]

You people claiming $75mil is outrageous have probably never had your peace of mind stolen. Peace of mind is an invaluable asset. Even moreso for women.

This isn't about her body making money. It's about her ability to live her life and do her job without wondering if someone is stalking her to film her naked, illegally.

The guy who purported this crimes deserves much more than 1.5 years in my opinion. A crime like this should ruin the perpetrators life.

The court system doesn't exist to pay people for "invaluable assets". There's probably no amount of money that you could pay Bill Gates that would make it worth it to him to have his leg broken in a car accident by a negligent driver. That doesn't mean the proper award to Bill Gates if he is injured in a car wreck is infinity.

Similarly, as terrible as it is that Erin Andrews's privacy was violated, that doesn't mean that she is entitled to $75M from the hotel.

[Dawg61]

You people claiming $75mil is outrageous have probably never had your peace of mind stolen. Peace of mind is an invaluable asset. Even moreso for women.

This isn't about her body making money. It's about her ability to live her life and do her job without wondering if someone is stalking her to film her naked, illegally.

The guy who purported this crimes deserves much more than 1.5 years in my opinion. A crime like this should ruin the perpetrators life.

A good argument can be made that Erin is LESS likely to have future stalkers filming her than other beautiful famous women at this point. In a backwards way Erin has become more safe now than she was before the incident. She's hot! Dudes are going to look at her like they are picturing her naked even if this never happened. $10 mill is fair. It's ten million dollars.

I actually met her once. Very pretty and very shy. She had ten other guys with her and one was a bodyguard who she asked permission if I could take a picture with her. Still have the pic. Guess I'm a stalker too.

[dawgs]

Hell listening to people explain away trump and make sissified posts like this make me feel extremely insecure about venturing out amongst the general public. If I based my entire life and mental state on a few off nuttjobs, then I'd be suing every state and national govt entity for all but eliminating mental health funding. Essentially the lack of funding and oversight over the mentally unstable around us puts us all at risks. Does this therefore grant me the right to sue for even the slightest insignificant offensive act or intrusion into my privacy for a preposterous sum of money?

The govt can't control every action of every individual at all times. We expect to hold a private business to this impossible standard? Suits like this are part of the reason this nation is currently swirling down the shitter. Common sense and logic are not so common these days. The majority of the population thinks and reacts on emotion, which more times than not is wrong, yet everyone wonders why we are surrounded by thin skinned butt hurt pussified pansies.

The responsible party had been convicted and is paying his time. I'd let someone film me naked for a month to have the opportunities and prosperity that poor wittle Erin has had to so tragically endure since this incident. I hope the next president suggests a change in our country name to UPSA. United Pansy States of America.

Jesus Christ, peep the moron. If you can't understand why at least some responsibility and liability lies outside literally the person that did the filming, then you are the problem with this country, not all the pussies that understand how a hotel could be liable for this and that punishing the hotel is how you deter the hotel and other hotels from making the same mistakes in the future.

Some of y'all need to read up on the difference between negligence and malicious and learn that both can lead one to being liable to a lawsuit. Should also watch the documentary hot coffee to learn that overzealous lawsuits are fabricated by lobby groups representing big businesses to get dumbasses that don't care to look at actual facts to believe we are destroying American businesses with lawsuits.

[DancingRabbit]

If it happened to my wife or daughter, I would be more ticked at the 1.5 year sentence that will probably be reduced to like 4 months or something. The hotel really didn't do anything malicious from what I have read on here and in other places. 75mm is retarded even for our justice system. Other than firing everyone involved that allowed that guy into the room next to her, not really sure what the hotel corporation could do to make it right. Paying her tons of money for the oversight of 3-5 employees and security is really overkill.

Now if the hotel employees changed the peep hole in question for the guy as a co-conspiritor, then hammer the hotel. Still 75 million is a bit too crazy.

He's out now. He served 2 1/2 years in federal pen.

[missouridawg]

The court system doesn't exist to pay people for "invaluable assets". There's probably no amount of money that you could pay Bill Gates that would make it worth it to him to have his leg broken in a car accident by a negligent driver. That doesn't mean the proper award to Bill Gates if he is injured in a car wreck is infinity.

Similarly, as terrible as it is that Erin Andrews's privacy was violated, that doesn't mean that she is entitled to $75M from the hotel.

When a corporate employee contributed to he negligence that led to the event occurring, the corporate entity should be punished severely. Severely enough to change corporate policy to prevent the break from occurring again. Does $75mil incentivize Marriot enough to make this not happen again? The court can decide that.

And your scenario with Bill Gates doesnt make much sense. Who was the corporate entity that permitted the negligent driver of crashing the car? That's the difference here.

[dawgs]

A good argument can be made that Erin is LESS likely to have future stalkers filming her than other beautiful famous women at this point. In a backwards way Erin has become more safe now than she was before the incident. She's hot! Dudes are going to look at her like they are picturing her naked even if this never happened. $10 mill is fair. It's ten million dollars.

I actually met her once. Very pretty and very shy. She had ten other guys with her and one was a bodyguard who she asked permission if I could take a picture with her. Still have the pic. Guess I'm a stalker too.

What a dumb, illogical conclusion to come to.

[missouridawg]

What a dumb, illogical conclusion to come to.

Yep. What he wrote sounds like something a Trump voter would say. Trump is currently driving the worlds largest short bus.

[dawgs]

When a corporate employee contributed to he negligence that led to the event occurring, the corporate entity should be punished severely. Severely enough to change corporate policy to prevent the break from occurring again. Does $75mil incentivize Marriot enough to make this not happen again? The court can decide that.

And your scenario with Bill Gates doesnt make much sense. Who was the corporate entity that permitted the negligent driver of crashing the car? That's the difference here.

Exactly, same thing with the McDonald's coffee case. McDonald's kept their coffee well above the legal limits for keeping coffee because they said their customers liked it hotter. McDonald's was warned multiple times to lower the temps because if someone spilled it on themselves they would suffer very severe burns. Eventually someone did spill it on themselves and caused extremely terrible grotesque burns that required years of surgeries. The jury ruled McDonald's paying punitive damages of 1 day's worth of coffee sold in all McDonald's around the world would be fair. Just coffe sold on 1 day. They took it to appeal and got it knocked way down and started the whole limited liability movement. The number amount of $75M sounds huge, but I bets that's like the amount Marriott makes in 1 day renting rooms all over the world. Yet all the idiots can see is the number and think it's crippling a major international corporation and don't even look into the facts further, they just run with their initial anger that they aren't the one getting rich.

How many of you would like to dump a cup of boiling hot coffee on your crotch for a pay out? How many would like to have their wives/mothers/sisters/daughters violated in what they believed to be a private space and broadcast on the Internet for all to see in return for a payout? Add in that they are famous and the number of people that see that video skyrocket.

[War Machine Dawg]

When a corporate employee contributed to he negligence that led to the event occurring, the corporate entity should be punished severely. Severely enough to change corporate policy to prevent the break from occurring again. Does $75mil incentivize Marriot enough to make this not happen again? The court can decide that.

And your scenario with Bill Gates doesnt make much sense. Who was the corporate entity that permitted the negligent driver of crashing the car? That's the difference here.

These clowns also don't understand that the amount you ask for isn't necessarily what you get. The judge/jury can increase or decrease the amount of award as they see fit. You can ask for $75M and be given $5M or ask for $5M and get $7M. It's essentially like a negotiation. Ask big up front, because you likely won't get the whole amount. Therefore, you set the bar high enough to get an amount you can live with after it gets lowered. But what do I know, I've only been through law school.

[bobcat91]

Those of you screaming at Trump voters, offer what as a solution? Hillary? You may want to check your mental status. I'm so sick I am thinking about not voting for the first time ever. A nutjob versus a government overlord. Makes me want to vomit.

[MadDawg]

Those of you screaming at Trump voters, offer what as a solution?

Broken promises, empty rhetoric and two Obama terms. That's what the F they offer.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Hell listening to people explain away trump and make sissified posts like this make me feel extremely insecure about venturing out amongst the general public. If I based my entire life and mental state on a few off nuttjobs, then I'd be suing every state and national govt entity for all but eliminating mental health funding. Essentially the lack of funding and oversight over the mentally unstable around us puts us all at risks. Does this therefore grant me the right to sue for even the slightest insignificant offensive act or intrusion into my privacy for a preposterous sum of money?

The govt can't control every action of every individual at all times. We expect to hold a private business to this impossible standard? Suits like this are part of the reason this nation is currently swirling down the shitter. Common sense and logic are not so common these days. The majority of the population thinks and reacts on emotion, which more times than not is wrong, yet everyone wonders why we are surrounded by thin skinned butt hurt pussified pansies.

The responsible party had been convicted and is paying his time. I'd let someone film me naked for a month to have the opportunities and prosperity that poor wittle Erin has had to so tragically endure since this incident. I hope the next president suggests a change in our country name to UPSA. United Pansy States of America.

Wow. You do know that other people besides you exist? Right?

[blacklistedbully]

These clowns also don't understand that the amount you ask for isn't necessarily what you get. The judge/jury can increase or decrease the amount of award as they see fit. You can ask for $75M and be given $5M or ask for $5M and get $7M. It's essentially like a negotiation. Ask big up front, because you likely won't get the whole amount. Therefore, you set the bar high enough to get an amount you can live with after it gets lowered. But what do I know, I've only been through law school.

I think everybody pretty much knows this WMD. But, speaking from personal experience, though it is accepted that a plaintiff will ask from more than the amount they are actually willing to accept, it is not a good idea to ask for an obscene amount, so far above and beyond the actual damages that it does exactly what it is doing now, causing a lot of people to think EA and her family are milking this thing for everything it's worth in a greedy money-grab.

True or not, that is the effect the claim is having, and it has the potential to turn jurors against her as well. If people or jurors suspect you are coming from a point of greed, they will also suspect your honesty about the, "emotional damage" you suffered.

[maroonmania]

The hotel is liable because he was able to get inside the room, switch around the peephole, and use the reversed peephole to shoot the video. THAT is how the hotel is liable.

I agree, I don't know why a hotel would think its OK to give information about the room location of a public personality. Even with that though did it state how the guy accessed the room? Now if the guy had just followed Andrews to her room to know where she was and then broke in while she was gone to set up the peephole then I'm not sure how the hotel could really be held liable. I mean if someone breaks in through your hotel room door and steals your belongings while you are out is the hotel liable? I don't think so. Giving out Andrews' room location seems to be what would cause the hotel to be at fault in this case.

[dawgs]

Those of you screaming at Trump voters, offer what as a solution? Hillary? You may want to check your mental status. I'm so sick I am thinking about not voting for the first time ever. A nutjob versus a government overlord. Makes me want to vomit.

You may not like Hilary, I'm not the biggest fan myself, plus I really don't like the idea that we could have 28 of the last 36 years of the presidency from 2 families if she won 2 terms, but trump would be such an unequivocal disaster on every level, it's almost unamerican to even legitimately consider voting for him imo. Even if domestically things remained relatively stable, internationally he'd be an absolute disaster. We'd be in world war 3 because he has less than no diplomacy skills.

A trump presidency is idiocracy come to life.


http://youtu.be/sGUNPMPrxvA

Sorry to get political, but I don't think people that want to rock the establishment by voting for trump really understand the repercussions it'd have.

[dawgs]

I agree, I don't know why a hotel would think its OK to give information about the room location of a public personality. Even with that though did it state how the guy accessed the room? Now if the guy had just followed Andrews to her room to know where she was and then broke in while she was gone to set up the peephole then I'm not sure how the hotel could really be held liable. I mean if someone breaks in through your hotel room door and steals your belongings while you are out is the hotel liable? I don't think so. Giving out Andrews' room location seems to be what would cause the hotel to be at fault in this case.

Umm even if he followed her (or if someone broke into your hotel room and stole your bags) I think an obvious lack of security would be more than enough to make the hotel liable for something. Both security guards and security equipment (cameras, proper locks, key readers to get off at the proper floor, alarms?, etc) that should have prevented a guy from following her (or prevented someone from getting away breaking into your room) was not present.

[Maroonandwhite]

For those of you that think the peeper has paid his restitution, he served 1.5 years in prison and roughly $12,500 in court costs and fines. I realize that he's broke, divorced, and now living with his father, but, crap. She is claiming that the video is still available on sites that refuse to remove it. The damage continues. As far as I'm concerned, she's still living with the nightmare of knowing that guys are getting their jollies to her naked, junk on an illegal video. Perhaps corporations can't control the actions of every employee; but, that doesn't negate their liability for a representative's actions as an employee. I highly doubt that she cares much about the dollar amount. I bet she would trade any amount for her privacy and dignity.

[Dawg61]

Lmao at those of yall getting super pissed and offended in this thread

[maroonmania]

You may not like Hilary, I'm not the biggest fan myself, plus I really don't like the idea that we could have 28 of the last 36 years of the presidency from 2 families if she won 2 terms, but trump would be such an unequivocal disaster on every level, it's almost unamerican to even legitimately consider voting for him imo. Even if domestically things remained relatively stable, internationally he'd be an absolute disaster. We'd be in world war 3 because he has less than no diplomacy skills.

A trump presidency is idiocracy come to life.


http://youtu.be/sGUNPMPrxvA

Sorry to get political, but I don't think people that want to rock the establishment by voting for trump really understand the repercussions it'd have.

Trump probably is a nutjob, but I can definitely say that if any REGULAR person had violated the security protocols that Hillary did as Secretary of State, they would not only NOT be running for President, they would be in jail somewhere.

[blacklistedbully]

For those of you that think the peeper has paid his restitution, he served 1.5 years in prison and roughly $12,500 in court costs and fines. I realize that he's broke, divorced, and now living with his father, but, crap. She is claiming that the video is still available on sites that refuse to remove it. The damage continues. As far as I'm concerned, she's still living with the nightmare of knowing that guys are getting their jollies to her naked, junk on an illegal video. Perhaps corporations can't control the actions of every employee; but, that doesn't negate their liability for a representative's actions as an employee. I highly doubt that she cares much about the dollar amount. I bet she would trade any amount for her privacy and dignity.

2.5 years in prison, I believe, his bunghole stretched repeatedly, having to point out on any and every job application he is a convicted felon, etc. This guy's life is ruined. Yes, he brought it on himself, but it is ruined nonetheless, and WAY beyond anything EA has suffered, as should be the case.

But ultimately, EA made a FORTUNE in the aftermath, received loads of support and sympathy and is set for life, all for the price of a grainy, unexciting nude video that, unless someone told you it was EA, would not have appealed to hardly anyone but extreme perverts. Who gives a shit what those people think or do?

Do you really think EA goes through life miserable because there are some twisted perverts out there who get off on knowing they saw a video of her naked so poor in quality that they wouldn't know who it was if that weren't told?

Do you really think EA is so traumatized by that thought that she should not only benefit as she already has with multi-million dollar contracts, etc, but should also receive 10's of millions of $ from Marriott, etc?

Again, let's consider that this may have been an honest mistake by the hotel, not a case of extreme negligence.

[QuadrupleOption]

Y'all do know that your running with the plaintiff's "facts", right? I'm guessing that the defense has yet to present it's own "facts".

Plaintiffs always blow shit out of proportion to bring out the feels in every case - it's their job. The defense will minimize everything it can to make you hate Erin Andrews and consider her to be a gold-digger. It's their job.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

[missouridawg]

Those of you screaming at Trump voters, offer what as a solution? Hillary? You may want to check your mental status. I'm so sick I am thinking about not voting for the first time ever. A nutjob versus a government overlord. Makes me want to vomit.

If it's between Trump and Hillary, we are all ****ed. That's a guarantee.

[MadDawg]

At least she was just naked. It's not like she was doing something on the video that would be truly embarrassing like say doing the squat cobbler.

[TrapGame]

How the hell did this go from Erin Andrews to an indictment of a Trump presidency?

This thread needs some Adderall.

[BrunswickDawg]

At least she was just naked. It's not like she was doing something on the video that would be truly embarrassing like say doing the squat cobbler.
I lost it when Slippin' Jimmy described the Squat Cobbler.

[Maroonandwhite]

2.5 years in prison, I believe, his bunghole stretched repeatedly, having to point out on any and every job application he is a convicted felon, etc. This guy's life is ruined. Yes, he brought it on himself, but it is ruined nonetheless, and WAY beyond anything EA has suffered, as should be the case.

But ultimately, EA made a FORTUNE in the aftermath, received loads of support and sympathy and is set for life, all for the price of a grainy, unexciting nude video that, unless someone told you it was EA, would not have appealed to hardly anyone but extreme perverts. Who gives a shit what those people think or do?

Do you really think EA goes through life miserable because there are some twisted perverts out there who get off on knowing they saw a video of her naked so poor in quality that they wouldn't know who it was if that weren't told?

Do you really think EA is so traumatized by that thought that she should not only benefit as she already has with multi-million dollar contracts, etc, but should also receive 10's of millions of $ from Marriott, etc?

Again, let's consider that this may have been an honest mistake by the hotel, not a case of extreme negligence.

Do I think she's miserable? No. But, I do think she has felt & still feels violated, shame, judgment, etc. She's said as much. I think she is entitled to what she and her lawyers are able to get from this situation. But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right? I mean her talent, looks, and broadcasting background had nothing to do with the fact that she was given subsequent contracts. That video did it all. I'm sure it was purely out of pity for what she went through. Surely she didn't really work hard for any of her compensation.

Do I think she was so traumatized that she felt the need to bring a civil suit in spite of her wealth? Yep. I don't understand why not. What's wrong with that? When does one become rich enough to compromise their privacy, dignity, or bodies if they don't choose to do so? Is $1 mil or $10 mil the point at which a beautiful woman should excuse some perv for violating her privacy? Why not make it $1?

So what if it was an honest mistake by the hotel? She still has the right to sue. If the judge and jury find in her favor, it sends a message to those in the lodging industry. If she doesn't win, then I'm ok with that too. Who are we to judge her for seeking justice? If she's an opportunist, it will come out eventually. Civil lawsuits accompany criminal trials all the time. It is just part of the justice system. I just would withhold judging her for nefarious reasons. Afterall, she was the victim.

As for me being mad, I'm not. I'm just a bit shocked at the callous attitudes by some. I am a son, husband, and father as I expect most of the posters are. I would hate to think of someone committing that sort of crime on my family or yours.

[Coach34]

The guy ****ed up and paid a stiff price for it. This guy has to live with Tyrone or Bubba treating him like pin cushion.

Andrews is not some tormented soul struggling to get thru life- she is on TV constantly and living her life. 75MM is ridiculous.

[dawgs]

The guy ****ed up and paid a stiff price for it. This guy has to live with Tyrone or Bubba treating him like pin cushion.

Andrews is not some tormented soul struggling to get thru life- she is on TV constantly and living her life. 75MM is ridiculous.

Those damages are probably based on some calculation of profits/revenues of Marriott hotels, for a company that makes billions in profit each year, of course the amount in damages to deter them from making the same mistakes is going to sound huge to average folks like us.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

The guy ****ed up and paid a stiff price for it. This guy has to live with Tyrone or Bubba treating him like pin cushion.

Andrews is not some tormented soul struggling to get thru life- she is on TV constantly and living her life. 75MM is ridiculous.

Not you or anyone else knows how EA deals with this. Are you saying that since she is on TV that you know exactly how she feels? That's insane.

Would the hotel be liable in any way if they knowingly granted the guy's request to be in the room next to her, and then she was raped ? I think we both know the answer to that question

A lot of the responses on this board are inferring that since she is an attractive woman on TV that it's not a big deal (or had it coming) that she had her privacy violated.

Did she make money from endorsements from it ? Maybe so, maybe not but just because someone makes money off of a bad situation doesn't mean that they wouldn't give it back if they could make it go away. Think the Browns or Goldman's would give OJ's money back?

[blacklistedbully]

Do I think she's miserable? No. But, I do think she has felt & still feels violated, shame, judgment, etc. She's said as much. I think she is entitled to what she and her lawyers are able to get from this situation. But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right? I mean her talent, looks, and broadcasting background had nothing to do with the fact that she was given subsequent contracts. That video did it all. I'm sure it was purely out of pity for what she went through. Surely she didn't really work hard for any of her compensation.

Do I think she was so traumatized that she felt the need to bring a civil suit in spite of her wealth? Yep. I don't understand why not. What's wrong with that? When does one become rich enough to compromise their privacy, dignity, or bodies if they don't choose to do so? Is $1 mil or $10 mil the point at which a beautiful woman should excuse some perv for violating her privacy? Why not make it $1?

So what if it was an honest mistake by the hotel? She still has the right to sue. If the judge and jury find in her favor, it sends a message to those in the lodging industry. If she doesn't win, then I'm ok with that too. Who are we to judge her for seeking justice? If she's an opportunist, it will come out eventually. Civil lawsuits accompany criminal trials all the time. It is just part of the justice system. I just would withhold judging her for nefarious reasons. Afterall, she was the victim.

As for me being mad, I'm not. I'm just a bit shocked at the callous attitudes by some. I am a son, husband, and father as I expect most of the posters are. I would hate to think of someone committing that sort of crime on my family or yours.

You can go straight to hell, asshole! You come on here with this condescending, unsupported BS, "But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right?"! You are a ****ing moron, and I don't care if I get suspended for posting it.

Posters like you who twist words and/or use the BS straw man tactic you did are the worst kind. You can't win an argument on merit, so you resort to insulting, dishonest tactics like this.

SCREW YOU and your high-horse.

Oh, and I do have a wife and kids, and have volunteered extensively with youth organizations. If this had happened to my wife or child, I would damn sure have been after the guy who did it and would have felt his sentence justified. Had my daughter truly been harmed by it due to someone's negligence, I would have pursued it as well.

But had my daughter reaped the financial benefits EA did and received the overwhelming support she did, I would not change my mind about how I feel with this lawsuit.

Oh, and if you don't think EA realized a boost as a result of the exposure and resulting sympathy, etc, then you're uninformed to say the least. In my personal opinion I think she has quite a bit. I've got nothing against her personally, but will tell you, since I watch DWTS with my wife, I can say I think she really sucks as a co-host. She spends WAY too much time talking about herself when she was a contestant, etc. She strikes me as being rather self-centered.

Does that mean I think she deserved what she got? Of course not. Only a complete moron could possibly think that!

[dawgs]

But had my daughter reaped the financial benefits EA did and received the overwhelming support she did, I would not change my mind about how I feel with this lawsuit.

Oh, and if you don't think EA realized a boost as a result of the exposure and resulting sympathy, etc, then you're uninformed to say the least. In my personal opinion I think she has quite a bit. I've got nothing against her personally, but will tell you, since I watch DWTS with my wife, I can say I think she really sucks as a co-host. She spends WAY too much time talking about herself when she was a contestant, etc. She strikes me as being rather self-centered.

Does that mean I think she deserved what she got? Of course not. Only a complete moron could possibly think that!

1) I think you are lying that if your daughter or wife benefited from the violations, then you wouldn't change your mind about the lawsuit. What if your daughter was raped and turned it into a #1 selling book about mentally overcoming her rape? You saying you'd tell her not to sue the hotel that told her rapist which room she was in and agreed to put him in the room next to her? Bull****ingshit. And with regards to EA, she was already very famous and a big name in sportsbroadcasting, so how do you know everything she's done since is only due to the video and not due to all the years of hardwork and building her name and reputation up prior to the video?

2) aren't contestants on reality shows supposed to talk about themselves? She wasn't the co-host. (No I don't and didn't watch dwts, but I have a general idea of how contestant driven shows work).

[blacklistedbully]

1) I think you are lying that if your daughter or wife benefited from the violations, then you wouldn't change your mind about the lawsuit. What if your daughter was raped and turned it into a #1 selling book about mentally overcoming her rape? You saying you'd tell her not to sue the hotel that told her rapist which room she was in and agreed to put him in the room next to her? Bull****ingshit. And with regards to EA, she was already very famous and a big name in sportsbroadcasting, so how do you know everything she's done since is only due to the video and not due to all the years of hardwork and building her name and reputation up prior to the video?

2) aren't contestants on reality shows supposed to talk about themselves? She wasn't the co-host. (No I don't and didn't watch dwts, but I have a general idea of how contestant driven shows work).

1) GFY on calling me a liar. I've given you no cause, so your assuming I am is just ignorance on your part.

2) I can't believe you're seriously trying to equivocate what happened to EA with rape. That is so incredibly offensive. Rape victims are put through exponentially more suffering, and you know it. The very fact that you would use that red herring is despicable.
3) I've already said the hotel should be punitively punished in an appropriate manner, after all the facts are out. The defense gets to make it case, too, you know. I just don't think what they did equates to the kind of negligence that warrants 10's of millions of $.
4) I base this on what I've read that the guy wasn't told EA's room #, nor was he given a room by requesting , "the room next to EA". As I understand it, he found a way to exploit a problem with the phone system, which when he asked to be connected to EA from a hotel phone (not illegal or against hotel policy), allowed him to figure out which room it rang to. He then went to the desk, not asking to be next to EA, rather asking for a room #. Again, not illegal or against standard hotel policy,as far as I know.
5) I never said all her success if a result of people feeling sorry for her because of the incident, etc. But it is clear to anyone paying attention that her career-path went up sharply after the incident. Some may be due to people in position to help wanting to, and some may be employers realizing her increased celebrity + the general public's interest in her due to the incident is good for ratings. But there is no doubt her celebrity increased as a result, and has clearly not stopped her from getting progressively better jobs and endorsements.
6) No, DWTS is not a reality show, it is a celebrity dance contest, and no, the hosts are not supposed to spend a lot of time talking about themselves, they're supposed to focus the attention on the current season's celebrities. When I watch her host, I hear an awful lot of, "I".

A lot of you seem to be thinking that this dude walked up to the check-in desk, asked for the room EA was in, was told and then asked for and received the room next to hers. If that is true, then I'd side with you guys. But as far as I know, that's not the case.

It makes a BIG difference.

[defiantdog]

How the hell did this go from Erin Andrews to an indictment of a Trump presidency?

This thread needs some Adderall.

I was thinking the same thing.... Erin Andrews and Hillary Clinton should never be mentioned in the same thread.... ever.

[Johnson85]

When a corporate employee contributed to he negligence that led to the event occurring, the corporate entity should be punished severely. Severely enough to change corporate policy to prevent the break from occurring again. Does $75mil incentivize Marriot enough to make this not happen again? The court can decide that.

And your scenario with Bill Gates doesnt make much sense. Who was the corporate entity that permitted the negligent driver of crashing the car? That's the difference here.

The point wasn't regarding vicarious liability, the point was regarding the proper measure of damages. Erin Andrews didn't suffer $75M worth of damages. Her economic damages are probably small to non-existent. The emotional distress is probably significant, but doesn't come close to approaching $75M dollars. Reasonable people would not value that distress at $75M, even if Erin Andrews wouldn't have posed nude for $75M. That was the point of the Bill Gates example. Bill Gates could plausibly argue that he would pay $75M not to be in an accident, and therefore $75M is a reasonable measure of the damages he suffers from being in the accident. On the economic damages, his work being more valuable does increase the damages, but it doesn't or at least shouldn't increase the non-economic damages.

As far as what damages are necessary to provide the right incentive to Marriot, that's typically not the right standard if there wasn't damages caused by gross negligence or intentional acts or omission, which would bring punitive damages into play. Even then, there are limits on how big a multiplier the damages can be of the actual damages suffered. Most likely this was simple negligence, so the actual damages are what's important. And regardless, if it's simple negligence, a $1M fine plus legal costs will likely be enough to encourage Marriott to fix it. That may not be a huge number to Marriot, but they're still not going to like throwing away a couple of million dollars over something easily preventable.

[Coach34]

The point wasn't regarding vicarious liability, the point was regarding the proper measure of damages. Erin Andrews didn't suffer $75M worth of damages. Her economic damages are probably small to non-existent. The emotional distress is probably significant, but doesn't come close to approaching $75M dollars. Reasonable people would not value that distress at $75M, even if Erin Andrews wouldn't have posed nude for $75M..

This all day. Nobody is saying Marriott shouldnt be held liable if the facts are that they ****ed up like they did- but 75MM is outrageous. Hell, thats why ESPN is calling her in to ask her if this wasnt some kind of stunt because she was going to benefit greatly from it.

[Johnson85]

Exactly, same thing with the McDonald's coffee case. McDonald's kept their coffee well above the legal limits for keeping coffee because they said their customers liked it hotter. McDonald's was warned multiple times to lower the temps because if someone spilled it on themselves they would suffer very severe burns. Eventually someone did spill it on themselves and caused extremely terrible grotesque burns that required years of surgeries.

There is a ton of outright lying going on in the PR blitz regarding the McDonald's case. And it's not particularly easy to tell who it is as far as I can tell.


The jury ruled McDonald's paying punitive damages of 1 day's worth of coffee sold in all McDonald's around the world would be fair. Just coffe sold on 1 day. They took it to appeal and got it knocked way down and started the whole limited liability movement. The number amount of $75M sounds huge, but I bets that's like the amount Marriott makes in 1 day renting rooms all over the world. Yet all the idiots can see is the number and think it's crippling a major international corporation and don't even look into the facts further, they just run with their initial anger that they aren't the one getting rich.[QUOTE=dawgs;513912] Or maybe those "idiots" are the ones that understand a fast food restaurant might have 3% margins, so taking away the revenue of one day is roughly equal to 9% of their profits on that item for the year (probably not that much for coffee, since it's a high margin item, but still a more relevant way to look at it than simply gross numbers). And it doesn't have much to do with people being mad they're not getting rich. They just think that if somebody has earned their money, and made somebody whole for any wrong they have done, there's generally not a justification of tacking on tens of millions of dollars after that, although most would probably agree there are exceptions for malicious acts.

[QUOTE=dawgs;513912]How many of you would like to dump a cup of boiling hot coffee on your crotch for a pay out? For $75M, I'd jump at the chance for anything other than crotch or face. On the crotch, when I'm seventy? Depends on what kind of advances they'll have made in ED medicines by then. Have to get back to me in a few decades on this one.

[Maroonandwhite]

You can go straight to hell, asshole! You come on here with this condescending, unsupported BS, "But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right?"! You are a ****ing moron, and I don't care if I get suspended for posting it.

Posters like you who twist words and/or use the BS straw man tactic you did are the worst kind. You can't win an argument on merit, so you resort to insulting, dishonest tactics like this.

SCREW YOU and your high-horse.

Oh, and I do have a wife and kids, and have volunteered extensively with youth organizations. If this had happened to my wife or child, I would damn sure have been after the guy who did it and would have felt his sentence justified. Had my daughter truly been harmed by it due to someone's negligence, I would have pursued it as well.

But had my daughter reaped the financial benefits EA did and received the overwhelming support she did, I would not change my mind about how I feel with this lawsuit.

Oh, and if you don't think EA realized a boost as a result of the exposure and resulting sympathy, etc, then you're uninformed to say the least. In my personal opinion I think she has quite a bit. I've got nothing against her personally, but will tell you, since I watch DWTS with my wife, I can say I think she really sucks as a co-host. She spends WAY too much time talking about herself when she was a contestant, etc. She strikes me as being rather self-centered.

Does that mean I think she deserved what she got? Of course not. Only a complete moron could possibly think that!

Wow. That escalated quickly. Look, I didn't think I got personal with you or anyone else. I answered your sharp, rhetorical, questions with the same. As for my high horse, I've stated my case. I certainly didn't think it made me an a-hole for voicing my opinion. I never meant to question YOU as a father or husband. I think I just argued against an absurd point. My intent was to give EA the benefit of the doubt that she is genuinely upset. It's immaterial whether she has made millions of dollars post video. She's good looking and fairly good at her job. I would say, like a lot of other handsome male (& female) athletes and celebrities, she's parlayed that combination into a high income. Does that in any way dismiss her right to sue anyone? no. Class envy is huge part of the problems in this country. Some how if a guy has a billion dollars in the bank (for whatever reason), his rights should be less than the rest of society's b/c money equals happiness. Whatever. Btw, who are you or me to decide what is fair for someone's level of accepted happiness? Blacklisted, you can get pissed at me and tell anyone including me to go f-ourselves. I've been called way worse than you've dished out. I hate that you took things so personally. But, It still doesnt make your argument any more valuable or right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry this subject got so nasty.

[Maroonandwhite]

You can go straight to hell, asshole! You come on here with this condescending, unsupported BS, "But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right?"! You are a ****ing moron, and I don't care if I get suspended for posting it.

Posters like you who twist words and/or use the BS straw man tactic you did are the worst kind. You can't win an argument on merit, so you resort to insulting, dishonest tactics like this.

SCREW YOU and your high-horse.

Oh, and I do have a wife and kids, and have volunteered extensively with youth organizations. If this had happened to my wife or child, I would damn sure have been after the guy who did it and would have felt his sentence justified. Had my daughter truly been harmed by it due to someone's negligence, I would have pursued it as well.

But had my daughter reaped the financial benefits EA did and received the overwhelming support she did, I would not change my mind about how I feel with this lawsuit.

Oh, and if you don't think EA realized a boost as a result of the exposure and resulting sympathy, etc, then you're uninformed to say the least. In my personal opinion I think she has quite a bit. I've got nothing against her personally, but will tell you, since I watch DWTS with my wife, I can say I think she really sucks as a co-host. She spends WAY too much time talking about herself when she was a contestant, etc. She strikes me as being rather self-centered.

Does that mean I think she deserved what she got? Of course not. Only a complete moron could possibly think that!

Wow. That escalated quickly. Look, I didn't think I got personal with you or anyone else. I answered your sharp, rhetorical, questions with the same. As for my high horse, I've stated my case. I certainly didn't think it made me an a-hole for voicing my opinion. I never meant to question YOU as a father or husband. I think I just argued against an absurd point. I might intent was to give EA the benefit of the doubt that she is genuinely upset. It's immaterial whether she has made millions of dollars post video. She's good looking and fairly good at her job. I would say, like a lot of other handsome male (& female) athletes and celebrities, she's parlayed that combination into a high income. Does that in any way dismiss her right to sue anyone? no. Class envy is huge part of the problems in this country. Some how if a guy has a billion dollars are in the bank (for whatever reason), his rights should be less than the rest of society's b/c money equals happiness. Whatever. Btw, who are you or me to decide what is fair for someone's level of accepted happiness? Blackball, you can get pissed at me and tell anyone including me to go f-ourselves. It still does make your argument any more valuable or right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Bothrops]

Yada yada yada..women always know how to get what they want. Especially if they're attractive. Sorry, but there are many people in the world that have a reason to cry, and she ain't one of them.

[dawgs]

There is a ton of outright lying going on in the PR blitz regarding the McDonald's case. And it's not particularly easy to tell who it is as far as I can tell.


The McDonald's case is the first case you read in torts in law school. Everything I said is actually in the opinion on the case, not from the documentary. Though I don't think the documentary lied about anything with regards to the actual case either.

[dawgs]

The level of mysogyny and misunderstanding of the justice system in this thread is kinda sad really.

http://deadspin.com/marriott-ownership-rep-accused-of-playing-erin-andrews-1762487631

good thing the video was only up a few hours.

[Dawg61]

Steven Avery tried to get $34 million for spending 18 years in jail so they pinned a fake murder on him. $75 million for seeing tits?! Hahaha

[Johnson85]

The McDonald's case is the first case you read in torts in law school. Everything I said is actually in the opinion on the case, not from the documentary. Though I don't think the documentary lied about anything with regards to the actual case either.

Your torts teacher was probably too partisan to be good. Or maybe he just thought his students wouldn't be motivated enough to learn by starting with fundamentals.

[TUSK]

Judge Tusk is gonna rule on this:

1) The Hotel will pay the plaintiff (EA) $75 Million Frogskins...
2) The perpetrator/peeper is sentenced to 5 to 10 in Angola General Population...
3) Erin Andrews settles Class Action suit filed against her by those of us who are emotionally distressed at her landscaping style (for $25 Mil)...

errbody wins...

[GreenheadDawg]

If it's between Trump and Hillary, we are all ****ed. That's a guarantee.

Hard hitting truth right there. It makes me sick to stomach to think that's the best America can come up with. It's like voting for if you would rather have your dick smashed by a hammer or a rock. Either way it's gonna suck really ****ing bad. we are all in a lot of trouble.

[tireddawg]

You can go straight to hell, asshole! You come on here with this condescending, unsupported BS, "But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right?"! You are a ****ing moron, and I don't care if I get suspended for posting it.

Posters like you who twist words and/or use the BS straw man tactic you did are the worst kind. You can't win an argument on merit, so you resort to insulting, dishonest tactics like this.

SCREW YOU and your high-horse.

Oh, and I do have a wife and kids, and have volunteered extensively with youth organizations. If this had happened to my wife or child, I would damn sure have been after the guy who did it and would have felt his sentence justified. Had my daughter truly been harmed by it due to someone's negligence, I would have pursued it as well.

But had my daughter reaped the financial benefits EA did and received the overwhelming support she did, I would not change my mind about how I feel with this lawsuit.

Oh, and if you don't think EA realized a boost as a result of the exposure and resulting sympathy, etc, then you're uninformed to say the least. In my personal opinion I think she has quite a bit. I've got nothing against her personally, but will tell you, since I watch DWTS with my wife, I can say I think she really sucks as a co-host. She spends WAY too much time talking about herself when she was a contestant, etc. She strikes me as being rather self-centered.

Does that mean I think she deserved what she got? Of course not. Only a complete moron could possibly think that!

A little thinned skinned are we? You asked for it.

[BurgDawg]

First off that isn't a Marriott managed property. The company who owns and operates it is ****ed. Second the guy stayed in the room the night before she arrived and switched the peep hole. Wasn't like it was in her name he entered then switched it. I work for hotels and have for years shit happens.

[tireddawg]

First off that isn't a Marriott managed property. The company who owns and operates it is ****ed. Second the guy stayed in the room the night before she arrived and switched the peep hole. Wasn't like it was in her name he entered then switched it. I work for hotels and have for years shit happens.

Why did he switch it the night before. Did he take a guess on what room she was gonna be staying in?

[dawgs]

Your torts teacher was probably too partisan to be good. Or maybe he just thought his students wouldn't be motivated enough to learn by starting with fundamentals.

Nope. Just read the facts and came to the conclusion that everything i'd really heard about that case prior to that point definitely left out a lot of facts. Like pretty much any detail that went further than "woman spilled coffee on her lap". It's rather amazing how little critical thinking people do.

It's ok to sometimes agree with things liberals happen to largely agree with, you don't have to literally fight them on everything even on issues we should all be in agreement on. Country would be far better off if we didn't need to fight about stupid shit just because the other party was the first to back the right side.

[Bothrops]

Hard hitting truth right there. It makes me sick to stomach to think that's the best America can come up with. It's like voting for if you would rather have your dick smashed by a hammer or a rock. Either way it's gonna suck really ****ing bad. we are all in a lot of trouble.

Uhhh...we've like been in a lot of trouble, for like 8 years or something..

[dawgs]

Uhhh...we've like been in a lot of trouble, for like 8 years or something..

We are in less trouble today than we were the previous 8 years. Facts are facts.

[War Machine Dawg]

Wow. That escalated quickly. Look, I didn't think I got personal with you or anyone else. I answered your sharp, rhetorical, questions with the same. As for my high horse, I've stated my case. I certainly didn't think it made me an a-hole for voicing my opinion. I never meant to question YOU as a father or husband. I think I just argued against an absurd point. My intent was to give EA the benefit of the doubt that she is genuinely upset. It's immaterial whether she has made millions of dollars post video. She's good looking and fairly good at her job. I would say, like a lot of other handsome male (& female) athletes and celebrities, she's parlayed that combination into a high income. Does that in any way dismiss her right to sue anyone? no. Class envy is huge part of the problems in this country. Some how if a guy has a billion dollars in the bank (for whatever reason), his rights should be less than the rest of society's b/c money equals happiness. Whatever. Btw, who are you or me to decide what is fair for someone's level of accepted happiness? Blacklisted, you can get pissed at me and tell anyone including me to go f-ourselves. I've been called way worse than you've dished out. I hate that you took things so personally. But, It still doesnt make your argument any more valuable or right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry this subject got so nasty.

http://i.imgur.com/eslTVBJ.gif

[War Machine Dawg]

Why did he switch it the night before. Did he take a guess on what room she was gonna be staying in?

You should read the first couple of pages in the thread. Basically he asked to phone her room and used that to figure out what room number she'd be in. Then he requested the specific room number next to hers.

[GreenheadDawg]

We are in less trouble today than we were the previous 8 years. Facts are facts.

Is there a way to block someone so that I never see another one of their posts again? Please tell me I don't have to be subjected to this kind of ignorance anymore

[dawgs]

Is there a way to block someone so that I never see another one of their posts again? Please tell me I don't have to be subjected to this kind of ignorance anymore

Go right ahead and ignore me. Please explain to me how W made this country great in the 8 years leading up to Obama.

Note I haven't said anything positive about Obama except that we are better off today than we were 8 years ago, and I don't know how anyone that isn't willfully ignorant could say otherwise.

[Dawg61]

Go right ahead and ignore me. Please explain to me how W made this country great in the 8 years leading up to Obama.

Note I haven't said anything positive about Obama except that we are better off today than we were 8 years ago, and I don't know how anyone that isn't willfully ignorant could say otherwise.

Political board <======== back 3 clicks

[dawgs]

Political board <======== back 3 clicks

Didn't start it, bruh.

[Johnson85]

Nope. Just read the facts and came to the conclusion that everything i'd really heard about that case prior to that point definitely left out a lot of facts. Like pretty much any detail that went further than "woman spilled coffee on her lap". It's rather amazing how little critical thinking people do.

It's ok to sometimes agree with things liberals happen to largely agree with, you don't have to literally fight them on everything even on issues we should all be in agreement on. Country would be far better off if we didn't need to fight about stupid shit just because the other party was the first to back the right side.

You are comparing a case where a woman suffered serious burns and after remittitur was awarded something like $600k (the parties settled confidentially so it's not clear what exactly she got) to a case where someone was filmed naked and is asking for $75M not from the person that filmed her, but from the people that failed to catch/prevent him from filming her. I shouldn't have to say this to somebody that has actually taken torts, but that means the judge found the maximum amount of damages that could be supported by law, including economic, pain and suffering, and punitive damages, for having serious burns on a persons V***** and surrounding area, was under $700k. And you are using that case to support an argument that it's reasonable for Erin Andrews to get $75M from the people that failed to stop her from being filmed? And other people have a lack of critical thinking. That sounds reasonable.

ETA: to clarify that the censored word was actually the anatomically correct word, and not something vulgar. Not sure why that would be censored.

[missouridawg]

You are comparing a case where a woman suffered serious burns and after remittitur was awarded something like $600k (the parties settled confidentially so it's not clear what exactly she got) to a case where someone was filmed naked and is asking for $75M not from the person that filmed her, but from the people that failed to catch/prevent him from filming her. I shouldn't have to say this to somebody that has actually taken torts, but that means the judge found the maximum amount of damages that could be supported by law, including economic, pain and suffering, and punitive damages, for having serious burns on a persons ****** and surrounding area, was under $700k. And you are using that case to support an argument that it's reasonable for Erin Andrews to get $75M from the people that failed to stop her from being filmed? And other people have a lack of critical thinking. That sounds reasonable.

A jury awarded Stella $2.86mil.... In 1992. It's a different time now.

[blacklistedbully]

Wow. That escalated quickly. Look, I didn't think I got personal with you or anyone else. I answered your sharp, rhetorical, questions with the same. As for my high horse, I've stated my case. I certainly didn't think it made me an a-hole for voicing my opinion. I never meant to question YOU as a father or husband. I think I just argued against an absurd point. My intent was to give EA the benefit of the doubt that she is genuinely upset. It's immaterial whether she has made millions of dollars post video. She's good looking and fairly good at her job. I would say, like a lot of other handsome male (& female) athletes and celebrities, she's parlayed that combination into a high income. Does that in any way dismiss her right to sue anyone? no. Class envy is huge part of the problems in this country. Some how if a guy has a billion dollars in the bank (for whatever reason), his rights should be less than the rest of society's b/c money equals happiness. Whatever. Btw, who are you or me to decide what is fair for someone's level of accepted happiness? Blacklisted, you can get pissed at me and tell anyone including me to go f-ourselves. I've been called way worse than you've dished out. I hate that you took things so personally. But, It still doesnt make your argument any more valuable or right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry this subject got so nasty.

Big diff between asking rhetorical questions and posting, "But hey, she probably deserved to be spied on for looking all hot and dressing provocatively. Right?"
If I wasn't supposed to take that comment personally, why did you quote my post in response?

Where did I say anything other than what my opinion is? Where did I say I thought EA was not entitled to pursue her case on court?

As far as my being, "thin-skinned", that's sometimes truer than I'd like to admit, but I do like to think I reserve it for over-the-top crap like the above-referenced comment. One doesn't make such a comment unless one is trying to be particularly insulting, IMO.

I think we both know insults need not be limited to name-calling. In fact, name-calling pales in comparison to some things posted. I'd have been a lot less "thin-skinned" if you had called me an a-hole than I was about you insinuating I was intimating something as disgusting as your snarky comment suggested.

Perhaps you should re-read your post, and this time noting it was directed at me due to quoting my post. Read it as if you didn't have the luxury of knowing what you perhaps meant, and were simply on the receiving end, with only your words for input. I suspect you'll get a better idea why I got angry.

One more tip about posting on MB's, it's never a good idea to attribute comments our opinions to someone that they did not express. Nobody likes the straw-man tactic except those who employ it, and anyone with half-a-brain who picks up on that will not give much credence to your posts, IMO.

Now if your intent was to make a general statement in response to multiple other posters with various opinions with which you differ, may I also suggest you not quote one person's post when you offer your reply. I guarantee you most people will think you are countering the quoted person's post unless you make it clear you are not.

[Maroonandwhite]

check your private messages blacklisted.

[blacklistedbully]

check your private messages blacklisted.

ETA, NM.

If you just want to let it go, then let it go. I'm sure we've both got better things to do with our time. With the little I can spend here I'd rather talk about our Dawgs and smack-talk UNM.

[blacklistedbully]

check your private messages blacklisted.

Seriously, dude? You come back with another PM to take more pot-shots??? You accuse me of insulting you first, yet admit you were, in fact, trying to be insulting in the reply that got me insulting you back in the first place?

I was willing to let this go, and still am prepared to move on, but please stop trying to act like you're taking the high-road here while doing something else entirely on PM.

Don't bother with any more PM's, I won't be reading them. You are a complete waste of time.

[Johnson85]

A jury awarded Stella $2.86mil.... In 1992. It's a different time now.

A jury awarded $2.86, and it was thrown out by the judge.

And what does it being a different time now have to do with anything? The law hasn't changed, and if it has, it's gotten more difficult to get jackpot judgments for the most part.