All you lawyers saying $75mil was too high....

[missouridawg]

Erin Andrews just got $55mil awarded to her. Sounds to me like she should've asked for more. Hope this forces all hotels to tighten up security.

[Dawg61]

Erin Andrews just got $55mil awarded to her. Sounds to me like she should've asked for more. Hope this forces all hotels to tighten up security.

Steve Avery sued Manitowoc County for 34 million for false imprisoning him for eighteen years and he got life in prison for his reward. Andrews has a shitty quality video made of her naked and she gets $55 million. Seems fair.

[dawgs]

Erin Andrews just got $55mil awarded to her. Sounds to me like she should've asked for more. Hope this forces all hotels to tighten up security.

And for those worried about poor Marriott getting the blame and not assigning blame to the stalker, it was split 51%/49% stalker/hotel liability. So Marriott owes $26M and the stalker owes $28M, which will never be paid. That's why you name all parties in a lawsuit so that the courts can sort out proper liability in one place instead of having a bunch of different lawsuits against different defendants in different courts such that you might end up winning against all of them and have it add up to more than the damages you were seeking.

[dawgs]

Steve Avery sued Manitowoc County for 34 million for false imprisoning him for eighteen years and he got life in prison for his reward. Andrews has a shitty quality video made of her naked and she gets $55 million. Seems fair.

Avery would've probably won a lot more than he settled for if he hadn't needed quick cash to hire defense attorneys over his murder charge. Also, different states, with different tort laws, and over a decade difference in time.

It's also possible to think that Andrews deserved to win this lawsuit AND think Steve Avery deserved every bit of the $34M he wanted for wrongful imprisonment before he had to settle.

[missouridawg]

Steve Avery sued Manitowoc County for 34 million for false imprisoning him for eighteen years and he got life in prison for his reward. Andrews has a shitty quality video made of her naked and she gets $55 million. Seems fair.

Steve Avery was suing the clownshow investigators, not the county (from what I remember). The investigators were liable here and we're most likely worth a helluva lot less than $35mil.

Care to guess how much Marriott is worth? I'll hang up and listen.

[Coach34]

Guess 75MM was indeed too much if she got 55MM- half of which will never be paid

[dawgs]

Guess 75MM was indeed too much if she got 55MM- half of which will never be paid

Is your problem with it really over seeking $75M instead of $55M? Because that just seems like splitting hairs and missing the forest for the trees imo.

And who wouldn't rather ask for too much and get some of that instead of asking for too little?

[Dawgface]

1/2 of 55MM still a nice day for her. That should ease the pain.

[missouridawg]

Is your problem with it really over seeking $75M instead of $55M? Because that just seems like splitting hairs and missing the forest for the trees imo.

And who wouldn't rather ask for too much and get some of that instead of asking for too little?

Once someone starts digging in heels, they'll find whatever idiotic reason to keep backing their ignorant claims. We've seen two do it in this thread alone.

[smootness]

Steve Avery sued Manitowoc County for 34 million for false imprisoning him for eighteen years and he got life in prison for his reward. Andrews has a shitty quality video made of her naked and she gets $55 million. Seems fair.

Uh....o....k?

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

Steve Avery sued Manitowoc County for 34 million for false imprisoning him for eighteen years and he got life in prison for his reward. Andrews has a shitty quality video made of her naked and she gets $55 million. Seems fair.

Steve Avery made the mistake of murdering a woman and burning her body while his trial was ongoing. Rookie*

[gravedigger]

Erin Andrews just got $55mil awarded to her. Sounds to me like she should've asked for more. Hope this forces all hotels to tighten up security.

More...if you say so. I agree about hotel security. I like the job Erin does and as a pragmatist, know that this has not hurt her marketability with the sports world.

Just a thought, ID love it if every media outlet that published images of this were made to help foot 1/2 the monetary part. The fella that did it should spend time in LA county with some real sex offenders.

The real purpose of the suit should be to prevent in the future.

[Liverpooldawg]

Erin Andrews just got $55mil awarded to her. Sounds to me like she should've asked for more. Hope this forces all hotels to tighten up security.
So who ACTUALLY will pay? My guess is Marriot is insured for this. So that means that those who pay for liability insurance will pay for it. THAT will be passed on to their customers as a cost of doing business. That means when you get right down to it that WE pay for it. Cheers.

[Blackout]

Absurd. Give her half a mil and call it a day.

[missouridawg]

More...if you say so. I agree about hotel security. I like the job Erin does and as a pragmatist, know that this has not hurt her marketability with the sports world.

Just a thought, ID love it if every media outlet that published images of this were made to help foot 1/2 the monetary part. The fella that did it should spend time in LA county with some real sex offenders.

The real purpose of the suit should be to prevent in the future.

I think the $26 mil that the Marriott owners are going to pay is a pretty nice incentive to tighten up security.

She'll likely see very little of the $28mil the pervert is being forced to pay.

[DCdawg]

The lawsuit is against the franchise owner, the management firm operating the hotel, and the stalker. I'm sure she will get much more money out of the first two than the latter.

[dawgs]

More...if you say so. I agree about hotel security. I like the job Erin does and as a pragmatist, know that this has not hurt her marketability with the sports world.

Just a thought, ID love it if every media outlet that published images of this were made to help foot 1/2 the monetary part. The fella that did it should spend time in LA county with some real sex offenders.

The real purpose of the suit should be to prevent in the future.

Isn't that how punitive damages work?

Also, a pic like the pic below is pretty "revealing" for what she normally wears on tv, but is a long way from being naked. But if you are trying say posting publicly available clothed pics is as bad as posting creepy taken nude pics against her will through a peep hole is the same thing, then you must do really well with the ladies. It's really like saying a chick wearing a short skirt is asking to get raped.

http://www.eonline.com/resize/300/300/www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2015515/rs_300x300-150615114640-600-erin-andrews-cmt-awards-61515.jpg

[Coach34]

Is your problem with it really over seeking $75M instead of $55M? Because that just seems like splitting hairs and missing the forest for the trees imo.

And who wouldn't rather ask for too much and get some of that instead of asking for too little?

I think the whole thing is ridiculous and she should have been awarded a couple million and thats it. She has profited from the video- whether she wanted to or not. Anything over $2MM is ridiculous

[Coach34]

So who ACTUALLY will pay? My guess is Marriot is insured for this. So that means that those who pay for liability insurance will pay for it. THAT will be passed on to their customers as a cost of doing business. That means when you get right down to it that WE pay for it. Cheers.

Ed Zachery and twice on Sunday. People that dont see this are missing "the forest for the trees"

[dawgs]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous and she should have been awarded a couple million and thats it. She has profited from the video- whether she wanted to or not. Anything over $2MM is ridiculous

That's not a deterrent to the hotel to overhaul their system so that other stalkers can't figure out which rooms people are in by calling and asking to be connected through.

[dawgs]

Ed Zachery and twice on Sunday. People that dont see this are missing "the forest for the trees"

If someone runs a red light and seriously injured you and/or someone in your family, I highly doubt you'll be concerned about passing the cost of whatever settlement you reach in or out of court onto the other consumers.

[Coach34]

If someone runs a red light and seriously injured you and/or someone in your family, I highly doubt you'll be concerned about passing the cost of whatever settlement you reach in or out of court onto the other consumers.

Thats different- there is injury and medical bills. Me nor my family will profit in our career because that happened also. You are talking apples to oranges

[Coach34]

That's not a deterrent to the hotel to overhaul their system so that other stalkers can't figure out which rooms people are in by calling and asking to be connected through.

I'm pretty sure this is an isolated incident and not a common occurance

[missouridawg]

That's not a deterrent to the hotel to overhaul their system so that other stalkers can't figure out which rooms people are in by calling and asking to be connected through.

This what they're missing. After lawyers fees and taxes, EA will clear somewhere south of $10mil. She didn't do this for money. She did this to help prevent future rapes and peep shows.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

I'm pretty sure this is an isolated incident and not a common occurance

I am pretty sure you have no facts to back up that statement.

Also, just because a person or person(s) profit from a bad situation, it does not mean that the wronged party doesn't deserve compensation from those who are responsible.

[missouridawg]

I'm pretty sure this is an isolated incident and not a common occurance


http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/03/06/erin-andrews-trial-women-media-safety

[missouridawg]

Thats different- there is injury and medical bills. Me nor my family will profit in our career because that happened also. You are talking apples to oranges

How much is peace of mind worth?

[Coach34]

How much is peace of mind worth?

no more than 2MM

[BurgDawg]

Marriott not on the hook for anything the franchise company however will be hurting. If this would have been a MA managed property things would be different.

[dawgs]

Thats different- there is injury and medical bills. Me nor my family will profit in our career because that happened also. You are talking apples to oranges

Do you know if she had psychological medical bills after the incident? And of so, how much they were?

Also, just to clarify you are advocating for a system with literally no punitive damages?

[Coach34]

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/03/06/erin-andrews-trial-women-media-safety

This is the same thing thats been happening to men for years. Price of fame. Equal rights- men and women are equal- you know that right?

[Coach34]

Do you know if she had psychological medical bills after the incident? And of so, how much they were?

Also, just to clarify you are advocating for a system with literally no punitive damages?

I'm betting they werent 2MM

2MM is punitive- people dont have the right to be made rich because someone took a video of them and helped their career

[missouridawg]

This is the same thing thats been happening to men for years. Price of fame. Equal rights- men and women are equal- you know that right?

Several media members tht are male have tweeted at how they have never had to worry about security when traveling to cover sports like this.

[Coach34]

Several media members tht are male have tweeted at how they have never had to worry about security when traveling to cover sports like this.

Fame is fame. Media, rock stars, sports stars, etc- its all the same. Fame causes this. Equal rights.

[missouridawg]

Fame is fame. Media, rock stars, sports stars, etc- its all the same. Fame causes this. Equal rights.

What males have sued after having a peephole video released? What rights here aren't equal to you?

[Coach34]

What males have sued after having a peephole video released? What rights here aren't equal to you?

So no famous men have ever sued because photos or videos were taken of them illegally?

[missouridawg]

So no famous men have ever sued because photos or videos were taken of them illegally?

I can't recall any videos illegally taken of a male in the same vein that EAs video was taken (in which a poor security policy by a large, public company allowed).

[Bucky Dog]

And her lawyers will take 30-35% of what is collected!

[blacklistedbully]

Still say it was too high. Also still think OJ is guilty, but hey, since the jury decided otherwise, I must be wrong.

[confucius say]

Serious question. Who on this board would not let someone post a grainy (so I've read) video of them naked to walk away with 10-12 million? I would think most would say sign me up.

[missouridawg]

Serious question. Who on this board would not let someone post a grainy (so I've read) video of them naked to walk away with 10-12 million? I would think most would say sign me up.

Who here would allow a guy, creepy enough to stalk you for a year, film you naked in a random city without your consent?

That's the question you should ask.

[confucius say]

Who here would allow a guy, creepy enough to stalk you for a year, film you naked in a random city without your consent?

That's the question you should ask.

Of course the answer to that is no. But that question has nothing to do with the underlying premise present throughout this thread, which was $ and whether the verdict was too high. Your question totally eliminated money.

[dawgs]

Serious question. Who on this board would not let someone post a grainy (so I've read) video of them naked to walk away with 10-12 million? I would think most would say sign me up.


If you consent to it, you aren't being violated.

[Coach34]

Who here would allow a guy, creepy enough to stalk you for a year, film you naked in a random city without your consent?

That's the question you should ask.

for 10-12 million? Film away

[dawgs]

There's literally no way to objectively say you'd be ok to wake up tomorrow and there be an email in all your friends, families, co-workers, etc. inbox with a video of you hanging out naked in a hotel room where you expected privacy. You'd be creeped the **** out and feel violated. Now imagine being a somewhat famous attractive female that probably gets contacted on social media by creepers hourly and likely doesn't cover a sporting event without some cool guy yelling about how hot she is or how much he wants to screw her or something creepy, then waking up to find that video is the biggest thing on the Internet and millions of people are watching. That's absolutely humiliating and embarrassing.

[War Machine Dawg]

Is your problem with it really over seeking $75M instead of $55M? Because that just seems like splitting hairs and missing the forest for the trees imo.

And who wouldn't rather ask for too much and get some of that instead of asking for too little?

It's pretty easy to figure out C34 has serious issues when it comes to women. He needs to STFU and stick to sports and trolling Northern Miss.

[Dawg61]

There's literally no way to objectively say you'd be ok to wake up tomorrow and there be an email in all your friends, families, co-workers, etc. inbox with a video of you hanging out naked in a hotel room where you expected privacy. You'd be creeped the **** out and feel violated. Now imagine being a somewhat famous attractive female that probably gets contacted on social media by creepers hourly and likely doesn't cover a sporting event without some cool guy yelling about how hot she is or how much he wants to screw her or something creepy, then waking up to find that video is the biggest thing on the Internet and millions of people are watching. That's absolutely humiliating and embarrassing.

For $55 million I'd introduce myself by showing the video to everyone I ever meet for the rest of my life

[Coach34]

It's pretty easy to figure out C34 has serious issues when it comes to women. He needs to STFU and stick to sports and trolling Northern Miss.

oh hold on- I want to hear this. Serious issues how? I don't view women as the weaker, must be protected sex. They have more power than men will ever have.

Make me sure you respond to my issues

[Dawgology]

This thread is absolutely useless without pics...

[Jack Lambert]

Too much for some pictures of Boobies.

[Johnson85]

Once someone starts digging in heels, they'll find whatever idiotic reason to keep backing their ignorant claims. We've seen two do it in this thread alone.

You're arguing taht the fact that she only got $55M is evidence that $75M wasn't too much to get. And other people are the ones digging their heels in to back their ignorant claims...

[Johnson85]

So who ACTUALLY will pay? My guess is Marriot is insured for this. So that means that those who pay for liability insurance will pay for it. THAT will be passed on to their customers as a cost of doing business. That means when you get right down to it that WE pay for it. Cheers.

I seriously doubt the franchisee is insured for $26M. I don't know what the standard practice is with hotels, but I'm guessing it's more like $10M.

Doesn't matter though. They're going to settle within insurance limits or slightly above or the verdict is likely going to get reduced on a remittitur motion or on appeal. Economic damages are likely minimal to non-existent, so without punitive damages (which as far as I know nothing has been reported about teh hotel doing anything to merit punitive damages), I don't think the judge or an appellate court is going to be able to justify anywhere close to $50M in emotional distress.

[Johnson85]

That's not a deterrent to the hotel to overhaul their system so that other stalkers can't figure out which rooms people are in by calling and asking to be connected through.

I'll never understand why people with attitudes like this aren't in business for themselves. You think hotel franchisees roll in enough money that they won't take corrective actions to prevent even a $1M loss? That's just 17ing insane. If you think a group franchising hotels can ignore a multimillion dollar loss, why in the 17 would you not be a hotel franchisee? I mean for 17s sake, all you have to do is raise a few million in capital, get a loan, and then you'll rake in so much money that you won't even bother to adjust your security policies when you suffer a $2M loss (plus attorneys fees) because it will be so minimal compared to your profits. If you believe this, why aren't you out knocking on doors trying to raise money to open a 17ing hotel?

But in the real world, not only are hotel franchises not insanely profitable, their insurance carrier is likely going to require their security measures to be fixed, or they are going to increase their premiums to where it doesn't make sense not to fix it.

[Johnson85]

Do you know if she had psychological medical bills after the incident? And of so, how much they were?

Also, just to clarify you are advocating for a system with literally no punitive damages?

What do you think the franchise group did to merit punitive damages?

[missouridawg]

You're arguing taht the fact that she only got $55M is evidence that $75M wasn't too much to get. And other people are the ones digging their heels in to back their ignorant claims...

You always, always, always ask for more than what you think you can get. The fact the jury only dropped it by about 20% indicates that she could've asked for $100mil and received more than $55mil in return.

[missouridawg]

What do you think the franchise group did to merit punitive damages?

They allowed for a hotel to be run in a matter that divulged information about their clients that was used to do something illegal and heinous.

[Ralph]

They allowed for a hotel to be run in a matter that divulged information about their clients that was used to do something illegal and heinous.

While this is true, punitive damages are typically gauged by how egregious the intent of the wrongdoing. In this case, I haven't seen anything that lends to believe the hotel employees were involved in a conspiracy to assist in the heinous act.

Certainly poor policy and/or training employees, but the intent of the hotel was not egregious imo.

[dawgs]

I'll never understand why people with attitudes like this aren't in business for themselves. You think hotel franchisees roll in enough money that they won't take corrective actions to prevent even a $1M loss? That's just 17ing insane. If you think a group franchising hotels can ignore a multimillion dollar loss, why in the 17 would you not be a hotel franchisee? I mean for 17s sake, all you have to do is raise a few million in capital, get a loan, and then you'll rake in so much money that you won't even bother to adjust your security policies when you suffer a $2M loss (plus attorneys fees) because it will be so minimal compared to your profits. If you believe this, why aren't you out knocking on doors trying to raise money to open a 17ing hotel?

But in the real world, not only are hotel franchises not insanely profitable, their insurance carrier is likely going to require their security measures to be fixed, or they are going to increase their premiums to where it doesn't make sense not to fix it.

The insurance companies will pressure them to correct the issues, because the insurance companies just paid out millions for them.

That said, auto makers regularly do cost-benefit analysis on parts recalls. The estimate how much they'll pay out in lawsuits/attorney's fees for the part failing, and they'll compare that to the cost of replacing the part. If they don't expect many lawsuits or big payouts to cost more than the recall replacement, they don't issue a recall. In this case, of the hotel only owed $2M in damages, maybe the estimate this is a once in a lifetime occurrence and it's not worth spending the money on a new phone system, more security, etc. but $26M gets their attention and if it happens again for the same reasons and they don't take any new measures to prevent it from happening, they'd owe a lot more the next time around. Suddenly now the updated system and new security costs less than the estimated cost of a future incident.

[maroonmania]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous and she should have been awarded a couple million and thats it. She has profited from the video- whether she wanted to or not. Anything over $2MM is ridiculous

I can see both sides. That amount of money for a grainy video that hasn't harmed her career is a little over the top BUT the hotel needs to understand how serious this was. With this particular case it was a sports personality's privacy and dignity that was violated but what if the guy had been out to do her real physical harm? I mean apparently the guy got access to the room somehow. What if his intentions had been to rape or even kill her? No doubt, the hotel security thing is a VERY serious matter.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

This is the point. Thank You

[smootness]

for 10-12 million? Film away

This is called consent, something Erin Andrews was never allowed the option to give.

And LOL at the thought that $2 million is truly punitive to a company the size of Marriott.

[2006Dawg]

You're arguing taht the fact that she only got $55M is evidence that $75M wasn't too much to get. And other people are the ones digging their heels in to back their ignorant claims...

No, what he is saying is that a verdict of $55M shows that the demand of $75M was not absurd. And clearly it was not, given the result.

The vast majority doesn't have even the slightest clue what they are talking about in this thread. A couple of all encompassing points to respond to the thread as a whole:

1. As a Plaintiff, Andrews is entitled to demand any amount of monetary damages she wishes. Whether you, me, Bob the plumber, or whoever agrees with it is completely irrelevant. That's what trial, juries, and judges are for. She has to make her case and convince a panel of citizens that she is right and that she is entitled to recover her damages. In this case, she clearly made her case - they awarded her $55M.

2. I don't think some of you quite understand how insurance premiums work when you say that WE are really going to be paying this. The insurance company isn't likely going to be paying anything over their policy limits, which are paid for by the premiums their insured pays. What those limits are in terms of these Defendants, who knows? I can tell you that the pervert won't likely be insured or paying anything in this. He'll file bankruptcy, or she'll have to put forth a lot of effort to put liens on any real property he has. Maybe she will do that out of spite for what he did to her, maybe not. As for the involved insurance carriers, they do this sort of thing all the time, so it is likely that they took the appropriate steps to keep from being put in a position to be responsible for an excess verdict (above their policy limits). If not, their panel counsel just lost a big client. A big verdict like this doesn't exactly just get passed down to EVERY other customer of the insurance company, either. It will get passed back down to the insureds involved in this in terms of their premiums going up, or they may simply drop these insureds altogether. If insurance companies worked the way you guys are claiming, then every one of our car premiums would go up daily - anytime someone else covered by that insurance company has an accident.

3. In terms of what Andrews will actually get - the hotel Defendants are on the hook for about $27M with the pervert on the hook for $28M. Take that $28M out of the picture right away. The other Defendants will appeal. During the appeal process they will re-enter settlement negotiations, perhaps with an eye towards the policy limits (Andrews' attorneys will know that it is unlikely that she will actually be able to recover much outside the policy limits - again, unless the carriers somehow managed to not protect themselves). It is actually possible that between the Defendants, they have enough coverage to get to the verdict % they are responsible for with excess coverage and other coverage perhaps being on the table. Not a one of us will ever really know the answer to that. In renewed settlement negotiations, they will come to a new number, lower than the $27M. Her lawyers will then take 40% off the top, first. They will then pay any litigation fees that were racked up (court reporters, witness fees, expert witness fees, court costs, etc...). She'll get the remainder and pay what, 40%+ back to Uncle Sam, and be left with $4-$6M or so I'd bet.

Whether the verdict was completely unreasonable is not something that I, or anyone on this board, can say. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, but unless you sat in the courtroom, listened to all the evidence from both sides, and weighed the evidence objectively, then any opinion that any of us have is just our own personal, biased thoughts on the topic in general. For better or worse, this is our legal process. It's been this way for generations, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[missouridawg]

I can see both sides. That amount of money for a grainy video that hasn't harmed her career is a little over the top BUT the hotel needs to understand how serious this was. With this particular case it was a sports personality's privacy and dignity that was violated but what if the guy had been out to do her real physical harm? I mean apparently the guy got access to the room somehow. What if his intentions had been to rape or even kill her? No doubt, the hotel security thing is a VERY serious matter.

What if it has harmed her mentally? Everywhere she goes, people remind her of the worst day in her life. A day in which she subject to one of the most humiliating things a woman could go through. That has to be very trying, psychologically. Does that psychological mind**** not hamper a career over the long run?

[smootness]

I honestly don't understand the arguments against the amount of money, except for greed and jealousy. This is how our system works. We give companies a lot of freedom, but guess what? With that freedom comes the possibility that if you do something people don't consider right, you could lose money and possibly a great deal of money. That is one big check against the power of big private companies.

And most of the time it works. I don't particularly like the degree to which everyone sues each other, but there is no doubt that it is in place for a reason and does accomplish some of what it sets out to do.

Be glad for this verdict the next time you depend on a private company to protect your privacy.

[blacklistedbully]

My problem is I think it's excessive against the hotel. Of course, this is based on my understanding of their role.

My take is the perp figured out a way to exploit an oversight in the phone system installed at the hotel. He gained access to a hotel phone, asked for EA, was transferred, and a feature of the installed phone system showed the room # belonging to EA. It had never caused a problem before, was immediately addressed by the hotel, and has not happened since.

Then the perp walked by the room EA was in, noticed a room next to hers was being cleaned, so went back downstairs to request that room. So, in reality, the only thing the hotel did, as far as I know, was not realize the phone system they had installed (no doubt by a phone vendor) was displaying the room # of the phone it was being transferred to.

To me, this does not amount to gross negligence. But that's just my opinion. No incidents before and no incidents since make this an isolated incident, which I think should have had a big effect on the jurors, as should have the hotel modifying the peepholes immediately after. It didn't.

Also, why in the world would EA check into a hotel under her real name? Celebrities have known for centuries that you should not do that if you don't want to risk being hounded or stalked. This is not to say she deserved to have her privacy violated, but it was incredibly stupid and irresponsible on her part, which makes me think it should have an impact on her award amount from the hotel, not the perp, but the hotel.

Bottom line, I just don't feel the oversight on the phone system is worth anything remotely close to the 49% responsibility the hotel got from this jury, particularly given it was an isolated incident and was immediately addressed by the hotel as soon as they discovered the flaw.

[Johnson85]

They allowed for a hotel to be run in a matter that divulged information about their clients that was used to do something illegal and heinous.

Again, what do you think the franchise group did to merit punitive damages? Simple negligence does not give rise to punitive damages.

[smootness]

My problem is I think it's excessive against the hotel. Of course, this is based on my understanding of their role.

My take is the perp figured out a way to exploit an oversight in the phone system installed at the hotel. He gained access to a hotel phone, asked for EA, was transferred, and a feature of the installed phone system showed the room # belonging to EA. It had never caused a problem before, was immediately addressed by the hotel, and has not happened since.

Then the perp walked by the room EA was in, noticed a room next to hers was being cleaned, so went back downstairs to request that room. So, in reality, the only thing the hotel did, as far as I know, was not realize the phone system they had installed (no doubt by a phone vendor) was displaying the room # of the phone it was being transferred to.

To me, this does not amount to gross negligence. But that's just my opinion. No incidents before and no incidents since make this an isolated incident, which I think should have had a big effect on the jurors, as should have the hotel modifying the peepholes immediately after. It didn't.

Also, why in the world would EA check into a hotel under her real name? Celebrities have known for centuries that you should not do that if you don't want to risk being hounded or stalked. This is not to say she deserved to have her privacy violated, but it was incredibly stupid and irresponsible on her part, which makes me think it should have an impact on her award amount from the hotel, not the perp, but the hotel.

Bottom line, I just don't feel the oversight on the phone system is worth anything remotely close to the 49% responsibility the hotel got from this jury, particularly given it was an isolated incident and was immediately addressed by the hotel as soon as they discovered the flaw.

This is fair, but some seem to be railing against the system for allowing this kind of settlement to take place.

You can take issue with the jury while understanding why the system works the way it does. There are juries that make questionable decisions all the time.

[Johnson85]

You always, always, always ask for more than what you think you can get. The fact the jury only dropped it by about 20% indicates that she could've asked for $100mil and received more than $55mil in return.

That's just not how the real world works at all. If it were, you'd see everybody just asking for infinite damages. In most cases, what a plaintiff asks for is just about irrelevant. But getting $55M (or really $27M) is not an indication that asking for $75M (or really $37.5M) was a reasonable request or that the plaintiff's lawyers undershot by "only" asking for $75M.

[Johnson85]

The insurance companies will pressure them to correct the issues, because the insurance companies just paid out millions for them.

The insurance company would pressure them to correct the issue because of paying a $2M judgment. I'm really curious as to how long you think it would take to get $2M in premiums from a hotel franchisee? Based on your statements, you really should either be starting your hotel or an insurance company. Because you obviously think they one or the other is just a license to 17ing print money.


That said, auto makers regularly do cost-benefit analysis on parts recalls. The estimate how much they'll pay out in lawsuits/attorney's fees for the part failing, and they'll compare that to the cost of replacing the part. If they don't expect many lawsuits or big payouts to cost more than the recall replacement, they don't issue a recall. In this case, of the hotel only owed $2M in damages, maybe the estimate this is a once in a lifetime occurrence and it's not worth spending the money on a new phone system, more security, etc. but $26M gets their attention and if it happens again for the same reasons and they don't take any new measures to prevent it from happening, they'd owe a lot more the next time around. Suddenly now the updated system and new security costs less than the estimated cost of a future incident.

Yes, car manufacturers (and really all manufacturers and to a lesser extent other businesses) constantly have to make trade-offs between costs, quality, and the preference of their customers/clients. It's not very helpful to compare absolute numbers between a car manufacturer that generates over a billion dollars of net income in a quarter to a hotel franchisee that might get $5M a year in net income.

But more importantly, how would you propose that hotels andor car manufacturers do their cost-benefit analysis? Don't you want them to compare actual costs and benefits? You don't want the cheapest available car to cost $100k and you don't want the cheapest available hotel room to cost $500. If a company's negligence caused enough damages that paying for them will bankrupt them, then that's the way it's supposed to work. But you don't want (or shouldn't want if you understand it) a system that routinely bankrupts companies not because of actual damages resulting from their negligence, but just because you think it puts a good incentive in place.

[dawgs]

What's funny about the "don't give her more than $2M", is that when its all said and done, she probably won't actually get much more than $2M. Lawyer's fees, taxes, little to no collection from the stalker, etc. while $2M or even $5M is a nice chunk of change, it's not life changing for someone of her means. If you start handing her only $2M, from which she has to pay her attorneys and taxes, etc, then it's not even worth her time and mental anguish to go through with the lawsuit, and the hotel gets off without any punishment.

[Johnson85]

What's funny about the "don't give her more than $2M", is that when its all said and done, she probably won't actually get much more than $2M. Lawyer's fees, taxes, little to no collection from the stalker, etc. while $2M or even $5M is a nice chunk of change, it's not life changing for someone of her means. If you start handing her only $2M, from which she has to pay her attorneys and taxes, etc, then it's not even worth her time and mental anguish to go through with the lawsuit, and the hotel gets off without any punishment.

Depending on what the value of the hotel franchisee group is, she's still in line for well over $2M. If she's paying 55% attorneys fees (which would be out of line high, a more likely number would be fees and then 40% after fees), she's still looking at her share of the collectible judgment being over 12M, and after federal taxes are paid shell still pocket over $7M (I'm assuming that being in Tennessee it will be subject to TN's state income tax, or lack thereof, but not sure how that works).

But also, it's sort of disingenuous to talk about her legal fees as if she didn't have any control over them. She could have agreed to an hourly rate and gotten out of the entire case for $2M and probably closer to $1M without having to go with budget lawyers. It's perfectly understandable that she went with a contingency fee to decrease risk, but her choosing to avoid risk shouldn't be used as an excuse to gross up the award for a contingency fee.

[2006Dawg]

What does an attorney taking a case on contingency have to do with budget lawyers? That's pretty common practice, especially in high dollar cases like this one. The attorneys in a case like this one would typically prefer a contingency fee arrangement.

I'm not sure I understand some of the arguments being tossed around either. If you want to argue that the legal system employed by our country is corrupt, wrong, or something along those lines, then fine. But, the result in this particular case is reasonably achieved in the framework of our legal system.

[Johnson85]

What does an attorney taking a case on contingency have to do with budget lawyers? That's pretty common practice, especially in high dollar cases like this one. The attorneys in a case like this one would typically prefer a contingency fee arrangement.

I'm not sure I understand some of the arguments being tossed around either. If you want to argue that the legal system employed by our country is corrupt, wrong, or something along those lines, then fine. But, the result in this particular case is reasonably achieved in the framework of our legal system.

The point is that you can't use the fact that she will "only" net $7M as an argument for why $55M is a reasonable judgment when there are no economic, physical, or punitive damages. Assuming the franchisee group is good for it, she will receive $27M. The fact that she chose to trade off half of that verdict in exchange for bearing no risks for the litigation costs doesn't mean the verdict against the hotel franchisee should be higher. The whole point about the budget lawyers is that she could have gotten very good, very expensive lawyers and still come out for less than $2M, which would have left her around $15M net after taxes and legal fees.

[2006Dawg]

The point is that you can't use the fact that she will "only" net $7M as an argument for why $55M is a reasonable judgment when there are no economic, physical, or punitive damages. Assuming the franchisee group is good for it, she will receive $27M. The fact that she chose to trade off half of that verdict in exchange for bearing no risks for the litigation costs doesn't mean the verdict against the hotel franchisee should be higher. The whole point about the budget lawyers is that she could have gotten very good, very expensive lawyers and still come out for less than $2M, which would have left her around $15M net after taxes and legal fees.

There is no argument that her attorneys fees dictate that her recovery should be higher. What the attorneys get plays no part in what recovery a Plaintiff has. It's not blackboard-able damages. Nor am I using what she may ultimately get in recovery as a reason for why the verdict was reasonable. Honestly, without being in the Courtroom for the entire trial, and hearing and seeing all of the evidence presented on both sides, I have no basis to say that the verdict is or isn't reasonable. Neither do you. What I am saying is that she went through the established legal process, and the result of that process was a verdict of $55M. At least for now. The result of the legal process seems to say that the verdict was reasonable, but there is always the chance that you get your validation through appeal.

I'm not sure there are many lawyers out there who would take on a case like this on an hourly rate. I'm sure there are some, but most would be insisting on contingency, I'd imagine.

[Johnson85]

There is no argument that her attorneys fees dictate that her recovery should be higher.

The post I was responding to made exactly that argument. And my post quoted it, so I'm not sure where the confusion was.


Honestly, without being in the Courtroom for the entire trial, and hearing and seeing all of the evidence presented on both sides, I have no basis to say that the verdict is or isn't reasonable. Neither do you.
So far, nobody has reported that Andrews received punitive damages. It's also fairly likely that there were no economic damages. While it's certainly not conclusive, there is a basis to think that the verdict is unreasonable, because $55M for emotional distress, when there is no accompanying economic damage or physical injury and no behavior justifying punitive damages, is unreasonable. It may come to light that there was a finding of gross negligence or outrageous behavior that justifies punitive damages, but based on the information available, it seems more likely than not that the verdict was unreasonable.



I'm not sure there are many lawyers out there who would take on a case like this on an hourly rate. I'm sure there are some, but most would be insisting on contingency, I'd imagine. You would imagine incorrectly. Many would prefer a contingency as they would expect it to work out economically for them, and there would probably be some whose business model is to only take contingency cases, but she would have had no problem getting an hourly rate.