PDA

View Full Version : Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peeping Tom Trial




enhanced_deficit
03-07-2016, 07:39 PM
Such award for privacy violation suggests that we are a society that puts very high value on individual privacy. But elsewhere gropes, TSA scanners and SWCs blessed gummit intrusions tell a different story.


http://www.speakerscorner.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/erin25.jpg




Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peeping Tom Trial

03/07/2016 AT 05:45 PM EST

Sportscaster Erin Andrews has been awarded a settlement of $55 million for damages sustained after a stranger secretly recorded her in the nude in 2008 at the Nashville Marriott and then posted the video on the Internet.

Andrews had sued the franchise owner of the Nashville Marriott, West End Partners; the Windsor Capital Group that manages the hotel and Michael Barrett, the man who filmed Andrews by removing peepholes from her door and pointing his cell phone camera into her room.

http://www.people.com/article/erin-andrews-trial-jury-awards-55-million





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6hvUWv2CsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6hvUWv2CsY


https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ov-file-archive/piece/23/3/711923.0.TSABodyScannerLaughs.png

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/TSA1.gif
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/522-0617151213-mini-me.jpg




http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1117675.1342719674%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/tsa20n-2-web.jpg

Ronin Truth
03-08-2016, 08:20 AM
Get more therapy, Erin. You can very easily afford it now ............. and retire on the reminder. :p

Petar
03-08-2016, 08:26 AM
How is this the fault of the hotel owner? I realize that she is a victim, but why victimize someone else in turn?

presence
03-08-2016, 08:32 AM
I don't really understand how the employer is liable in this instance. This should be considered "frolic"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frolic_and_detour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_facit_per_alium_facit_per_se (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior)



There are three considerations generally:

Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?

The degree to which these are answered in the affirmative dictates the degree to which the doctrine can be applied.




Frolic and detour in the law of torts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort) occur when an employee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee) (or agent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency)) makes a physical departure from the service of his employer (or principal). A detour occurs when an employee or agent makes a minor departure from his employer’s charge, whereas a frolic constitutes a major departure wherein the employee is acting on his own and for his own benefit, rather than a minor sidetrack in the course of obeying an order from the employer. The employer will be relieved of vicarious liability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability), which is usually assessed through the doctrine of respondeat superior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior) for torts committed by the employee, only if the employee has deemed to engaged in a frolic.

presence
03-08-2016, 08:43 AM
55 million
-28 million she'll never get from the criminal
------------------------
27 million she gets from the hotel
-7 million knocked off at settlement
------------------
20 million she gets after settlement
- 8 million legal expenses
- 1 million court costs
------------------
11 million she gets after lawyers
- 5 million taxes
-----------------------
6 million she might actually get after lawyers and taxes


so what really happened?

9 million is paid to lawyers by marriot
5 million is paid to government by marriot
6 million is paid to erin by marriot

perv files chapter 7 and walks away scott free




Home (http://www.tmz.com/category/tmzsports)Erin Andrews: How $55 Million Gets Whittled Away ... to $6 Mil

3/8/2016 1:00 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF

EXCLUSIVE
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2016/03/07/0307-erin-andrews-losing-money-3.gif
Erin Andrews (http://www.tmz.com/person/erin-andrews/) won a spectacular victory in her peephole lawsuit, but her $55 million verdict is almost certainly going to get slashed many times over.
Of the $55 million, she will never see a penny from pervert Michael Barrett, who is on the hook for $28 million. Marriott is responsible for the remaining $27 million.
Marriott will almost certainly appeal the verdict, which then opens the door to settlement. There are compelling reasons why Erin might want to settle. It's a huge judgment when you consider there's no physical injury ... just emotional distress. An appeals court could overturn the verdict on grounds it's simply excessive. It's a crapshoot to go forward with an appeal ... for both sides.
The legal experts we've spoken with all say the likelihood is the case will settle ... for somewhere around $20 million on Marriott's part.
Now the lawyers' fees. In lawsuits where a case actually goes to trial, lawyers typically get around 40% of the recoverable judgment (http://www.tmz.com/2016/03/07/erin-andrews-peeping-tom-verdict-livestream/). So, if Erin settles with Marriott for $20 million, the lawyers would get $8 million, leaving her with $12 million. And Erin's responsible for costs in preparing the case, which we're told could approach $1 million, leaving her with $11 million.
Now the bad news. In cases where someone wins an award for emotional distress without any physical injuries, the award is taxable. So the $11 million becomes more like $6 million.
The good news ... the lawyers will make a fortune.



http://www.tmz.com/2016/03/08/erin-andrews-55-million-peephole-lawsuit/
(http://www.tmz.com/2016/03/08/erin-andrews-55-million-peephole-lawsuit/)

presence
03-08-2016, 08:47 AM
via reddit, not sure of accuracy... but some insight as to how he ended up in the room next door, the hotel "appeared" liable and the jury acted emotionally. :


https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/49f77q/erin_andrews_awarded_55_million_in_lawsuit/

[–]khronics1 (https://www.reddit.com/user/khronics1) 35 points 11 hours ago
Why's the hotel responsible for a perv with a spycam?
genuine question.

[–]A_BOMB2012 (https://www.reddit.com/user/A_BOMB2012) 101 points 11 hours ago
The hotel staff gave the guy her room number, apparently they weren't supposed to do that.

[–]grubber26 (https://www.reddit.com/user/grubber26) 99 points 11 hours ago
Worked in hotels for over 20 years. Can confirm that is a huge no-no.


[–]incident_report (https://www.reddit.com/user/incident_report) 61 points 9 hours ago
Then he requested a room right next to her room, the Hotel fulfilled this specific request and never informed her that someone has requested desk by her name and booked room right next to her.


[–]azzkicker206 (https://www.reddit.com/user/azzkicker206) 86 points 6 hours ago
It wasn't quite that simple. He knew that when you use one of the hotel house phones to call a room from within the hotel it displays the room number you're calling on the caller ID screen. He called the front desk from within the hotel, asked to be connected to Erin Andrews and the phone displayed which room he was calling. The front desk person didn't knowingly giving out her room number and likely had no idea who Erin Andrews was.
The guy also didn't ask to book the room "next to Erin Andrews." He just asked to book a specific room number, which people do, but he did so knowing it was the room next to hers.
There wasn't really any reason for the front desk person to be suspicious.

[–]khronics1 (https://www.reddit.com/user/khronics1) 8 points 3 hours ago
See, that to me sounds like he alone should have been held accountable.



[–]Rock_Julio (https://www.reddit.com/user/Rock_Julio) 6 points an hour ago
Unfortunately the hotel operator went with the "you should thank us for this nude video leak because it made you even more famous" defense and I don't think it went over well at all with the judge or the jury.

osan
03-08-2016, 08:58 AM
How is this the fault of the hotel owner? I realize that she is a victim, but why victimize someone else in turn?

It's the American way.

Left-Regressives are approve.

sparebulb
03-08-2016, 09:21 AM
The going rate for an innocent human life taken by the cops is only 1-5$ million.

Who does this narcissistic whore think she is?

Plus, she's not hot.

In fact, she sort of has a horse face and the voice is decidedly unfeminine.

If she actually gets some big $$$ out of this,

I recommend that she buys enough therapy to get over herself.

tod evans
03-08-2016, 09:22 AM
That's gotta be the most expensive set of tits in existence.......

robert68
03-08-2016, 11:17 AM
Celebrities have been using fake names when staying in hotels for ages, but she should be rewarded millions for not doing so.
She deserves an academy award for her performance in court.

Zippyjuan
03-08-2016, 02:43 PM
Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peeping Tom Trial

Peggy Bundy (Married with Children): I want to get peeped!

http://www.bundyology.com/hpg/zz322.jpg

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-09-2016, 11:24 PM
I love it when Ewin does the games. She--like--totally e-nun-ci-ates ev-er-y sin-gle word.

You go, a-mazzz-ing valley girl.