Erin Andrews 75 million dollars my a$$

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

SHE WILL NOT GET $55 MILLION. The jury pretty much insured the stalker is financially focked for then rest of his life. And that the hotel feels some pain for it.

 

And to all the people saying "Film me for $____, I don't care", you're missing the point. In that scenario, YOU'RE in control. Millions of people saw Erin Andrews naked before she ever knew anything was amiss. That's the difference.

 

Another difference is Erin Andrews will now be defined by this for the rest of her life, whereas the average mook would still retain her privacy/dignity.

 

Where is Libby Hoehler these days?

[KSB2424 3,083]

I do not think this was staged and I do think Erin Andrews should receive some compensation from both parties. But 55 Million for this? Come on.

 

The average Wrongful Death settlement is between 3 and 4 million dollars.

 

The system is focked up man.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I do not think this was staged and I do think Erin Andrews should receive some compensation from both parties. But 55 Million for this? Come on.

 

The average Wrongful Death settlement is between 3 and 4 million dollars.

 

The system is focked up man.

 

Here is what I don't get with some of the folks and the amount of money - while the average person might get $3-4M in a settlement, she is not the average person. She makes more now than the average person and she does it based on being in the spot-light. Anything that infringes on her right to make that money is fair game.

 

For example, my guess is that a janitor is going to get a lot less money than Stephen Curry would in wrongful death suit.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Here is what I don't get with some of the folks and the amount of money - while the average person might get $3-4M in a settlement, she is not the average person. She makes more now than the average person and she does it based on being in the spot-light. Anything that infringes on her right to make that money is fair game.

 

For example, my guess is that a janitor is going to get a lot less money than Stephen Curry would in wrongful death suit.

 

And that is bullshit. A life is a life.

 

I have nothing against Erin Andrews. I do think both parties (stalker and hotel) were at fault and should be burdened. But the system is flawed. It just is, I'm sorry.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

1. We tort reform in the US. We have for a long time. The amount of the award is just another example

2. Some of the amounts reflect consequential/direct damages which are more than they would be if she were not famous. Obviously the impact to someone's reputation or earning power is going to be far more with someone who makes more money.

3. Some of the amounts are for punitive damages to the hotel. If they don't punish them, then they (and other hotels) will not take the situation seriously. If this guy had gone on to kill her, then would we be saying the same thing? It is not unfathomable to think that there are stalkers who will do more than just pop out a peep hole and replace it with something that you can connect a camera to.

4. I see a settlement or a directed verdict with smaller dollar amounts, but this is still worth a penalty in the millions.

Disagree on tort reform. You hear about these verdicts every now and then but in the grand scheme of things they are a minuscule drop in the bucket. Plus, as you pointed out, the amount will probably end up being reduced through settlement or appeal.

 

No need to Fock over everyone with legitimate claims because a few bad results occur

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

And that is bullshit. A life is a life.

 

I have nothing against Erin Andrews. I do think both parties (stalker and hotel) were at fault and should be burdened. But the system is flawed. It just is, I'm sorry.

You can use the "life is a life" argument when you are talking about punitive damages. With direct/consequential damages, the amount of the damages is going to vary depending on the victim.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Disagree on tort reform. You hear about these verdicts every now and then but in the grand scheme of things they are a minuscule drop in the bucket. Plus, as you pointed out, the amount will probably end up being reduced through settlement or appeal.

 

No need to Fock over everyone with legitimate claims because a few bad results occur

 

Tort reform has been required for a long time and the absurd verdicts are only a small reason for that. We are an overly litigious society and part of the reform needs to happen for frivolous claims as well.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

And that is bullshit. A life is a life.

 

I have nothing against Erin Andrews. I do think both parties (stalker and hotel) were at fault and should be burdened. But the system is flawed. It just is, I'm sorry.

I agree with you in a sense but we have to have some way of measuring damages. In a wrongful death case part of that is how much the decedent would have netted in his estate had he lived. Now for most people that figure is $0 because most people consume all they earn. But for some people it's a Fock ton more - a CEO of a Fortune 500 company or an NBA superstar, for example.

 

I guess the other possibility would be to say "every life is worth $5 million, period." That's not the way our tort system works but maybe it would be a reasonable alternative.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

Tort reform has been required for a long time and the absurd verdicts are only a small reason for that. We are an overly litigious society and part of the reform needs to happen for frivolous claims as well.

I don't know how you accomplish that without eviscerating valid claims as well. Big business loves tort reform because then they can't be held responsible for their actions, but to me that sounds like a losing deal

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I don't know how you accomplish that without eviscerating valid claims as well. Big business loves tort reform because then they can't be held responsible for their actions, but to me that sounds like a losing deal

 

Frivolous claims have a penalty to them.

 

There are plenty of times where a big company needs to be penalized for blatant violations of the public trust, but there are also plenty of situations where an emotional jury awards an unreasonable amount of money.

[Cruzer 1,992]

SHE WILL NOT GET $55 MILLION. The jury pretty much insured the stalker is financially focked for then rest of his life. And that the hotel feels some pain for it.

 

And to all the people saying "Film me for $____, I don't care", you're missing the point. In that scenario, YOU'RE in control. Millions of people saw Erin Andrews naked before she ever knew anything was amiss. That's the difference.

 

Another difference is Erin Andrews will now be defined by this for the rest of her life, whereas the average mook would still retain her privacy/dignity.

Good points.. But even if she only gets $20m - still think most would gladly let somebody film them for that. In a controlled or non-controlled setting - no matter.. Plus I still think a lot of people are having a hard time relating to the horror, humiliation and devastation of just being filmed naked. It's 2016, not 1950 - naked women are all over the internet in films and pictures by the millions. It's so rampant that people are just desensitized to it all now. Even regular television has pushed the envelope - these days full butts and most of a boob can be shown.. As far as defining her - maybe to a few. But unless you're a sports geek, who in the hell is really going to ever think about or see Erin Andrews? And like I said those that do already know she's making a living off of her looks anyways... K. Kardashian has prospered and done very well bcoz of a video being leaked - good chance this only furthers Andrews' career... Not saying it's right - but generally many are having a hard time feeling too sorry for her.

[TD Ryan2 314]

 

To those people I ask: so it's only okay to be a female sideline reporter if she's ugly? If she's attractive, she's not allowed to her privacy, and everyone in the world should be allowed to see her naked?

 

Focking misogynist douchebags.

 

I'm guessing she worked pretty hard for all of her success. Sure, she's a tall, good-looking blonde but that doesn't automatically guarantee success. I'd bet it was a pretty big deal for her and her family when she finally made it to ESPN - the type of stuff parents can only hope for their kids. The type of sucess (and good fortune) that lots of people can't understand and don't react all that well to - success can bring out the ugly in a lot of people - the minute you "make it" and you're not an underdog anymore, people - both anonymous and sometimes those you know - are no longer happy for you. IMO, this is a lot of what's going on with the Erin Andrews backlash, and it's pathetic. She's no Kardashian - she's not a trashy, "look-at-me" reality goon.

[shotsup 832]

Thread tl;dr

 

Can someone explain why the hotel is at fault for ? Not having a security camera monitoring the way ? That's all I can think of.

[Thread Killer 10]

Thread tl;dr

 

Can someone explain why the hotel is at fault for ? Not having a security camera monitoring the way ? That's all I can think of.

 

Her stalker asked for the room next to Erin Andrews, and the idiots actually gave it to him.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Her stalker asked for the room next to Erin Andrews, and the idiots actually gave it to him.

 

It is more than that. My understanding is that he:

- used one of their phones and called to front desk to ask to be connected to her room.

- when they connected the call to her room, it showed her room number

- he asked to be put into the room next door

- he was able to pop out the peep hole in the door and replace it with his special one

- he was able to film from a (presumably) open area (the hallway)

 

They failed to take even reasonable precautions to protect, not only her privacy, but her safety.

[TD Ryan2 314]

 

They failed to take even reasonable precautions to protect, not only her privacy, but her safety.

[Thread Killer 10]

 

It is more than that. My understanding is that he:

- used one of their phones and called to front desk to ask to be connected to her room.

- when they connected the call to her room, it showed her room number

- he asked to be put into the room next door

- he was able to pop out the peep hole in the door and replace it with his special one

- he was able to film from a (presumably) open area (the hallway)

 

They failed to take even reasonable precautions to protect, not only her privacy, but her safety.

 

Thanks. I didn't know the extent of it.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

Frivolous claims have a penalty to them.

They already do but it is pretty hard to apply. You want to make it more widely applicable but that will discourage people from vindicating their rights

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

It is more than that. My understanding is that he:

- used one of their phones and called to front desk to ask to be connected to her room.

- when they connected the call to her room, it showed her room number

- he asked to be put into the room next door

- he was able to pop out the peep hole in the door and replace it with his special one

- he was able to film from a (presumably) open area (the hallway)

 

They failed to take even reasonable precautions to protect, not only her privacy, but her safety.

That makes it sound better for them. So he didn't just say "hey can you put me in a room next to Erin Andrews? He surreptitiously figured out what room it was and then asked for the room number that was next door?

 

I'm not getting the outrage. There are creeps out there and hotels can't protect you from them all. Their focus is probably on physical safety, as well it should be.

 

Don't get how the hotel is 49% at fault except I guarantee you the stalker and Andrews' legal team were in cahoots to fix the case against the hotel. Not that it was all some huge conspiracy but Andrews needs a big judgment against someone she can actually collect against and if the stalker helps maybe she doesn't come after him for everything he's got for the rest of his life.

 

Then all that crap about she feared for her life, etc. Cmon. I'm sure it was awful, I get that. And she definitely deserved recourse against at least the stalker. But this whole thing was way oversold and the jury bought it. I think that's why you're seeing a backlash.

[posty 2,296]

She will probably only get about $6 million after taxes...

[southcarolina 166]

She will probably only get about $6 million after taxes...

 

I'd still f0ck her.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Rule of thumb.

 

If under a lie detector test, a person would have this happen to them again if they were told they would get X amount of money. The X is to large of a settlement.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

If there is tort reform, say a cap on awards, are there any negative aspects to that, and do they outweigh the positives?

[TD Ryan2 314]

Rule of thumb.

 

If under a lie detector test, a person would have this happen to them again if they were told they would get X amount of money. The X is to large of a settlement.

I like how simple, easy, tidy that sounds, but I don't really know if it's a good litmus test.

 

 

If the award doesn't "make up" for the damage done, then you could argue that it wasn't a fair award... so I guess the way it should work is if the person would honestly say, "I don't know" to the question, not a definitive "yes" or "no". Once you get that "I don't know" answer, you're happily in the middle and therefore, even.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

Millions of people saw Erin Andrews naked before she ever knew anything was amiss. That's the difference.

 

Can you prove this?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Rule of thumb.

 

If under a lie detector test, a person would have this happen to them again if they were told they would get X amount of money. The X is to large of a settlement.

 

Similarly:

 

If a person or company who does something wrong would do it again if they paid X amount of money or if another company would do the same thing, then X is too small of a settlement.

 

 

You are only looking at this from the point of view of the victim. These civil cases are designed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent for people to do things that are not right and to hit them where it truly hurts.

[Cruzer 1,992]

 

Similarly:

 

If a person or company who does something wrong would do it again if they paid X amount of money or if another company would do the same thing, then X is too small of a settlement.

 

 

You are only looking at this from the point of view of the victim. These civil cases are designed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent for people to do things that are not right and to hit them where it truly hurts.

But how hurt is Marriot actually going to be? I'm guessing they have some kind of protection insurance for such things, no?

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Similarly:

 

If a person or company who does something wrong would do it again if they paid Y amount of money or if another company would do the same thing, then Y is too small of a settlement.

 

 

You are only looking at this from the point of view of the victim. These civil cases are designed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent for people to do things that are not right and to hit them where it truly hurts.

 

Fine I changed your amount to 'Y'. The persons amount is 'X'

 

Y minus X = amount that goes to charity.

 

I'm making up the numbers but for the sake of an example:

 

Marriott and individual pays 55 million

Erin Andrews is awarded 5 million based on some sort of actuary type calculation.

The Center for Stalked and Abused Women (not a real charity) gets 50 Million

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

But how hurt is Marriot actually going to be? I'm guessing they have some kind of protection insurance for such things, no?

 

They might have insurance, but insurance for many of these things is capped. Insurance companies do not typically just put in clauses to protect you up to an infinite amount. That would be bad business.

 

That particular hotel could have had a cap that was just under the award amount and the jury may have wanted them to feel the pain. Any half decent lawyer puts the head of the hotel up on the stand and asks him questions about valuing guest security and I will bet you that they asked him whether he had insurance in this case.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

They might have insurance, but insurance for many of these things is capped. Insurance companies do not typically just put in clauses to protect you up to an infinite amount. That would be bad business.

 

That particular hotel could have had a cap that was just under the award amount and the jury may have wanted them to feel the pain. Any half decent lawyer puts the head of the hotel up on the stand and asks him questions about valuing guest security and I will bet you that they asked him whether he had insurance in this case.

There are a few narrow exceptions but generally you cannot do that. At least in most states you can't.

[gocolts 300]

Colts, we are going to have a conversation about this. And frankly, I couldn't give a s*** with a loser like you think. But that is the entire basis of the settlement.

 

 

Answer me honestly, did you listen to even five minutes of testimony on other case? Do you honestly know that there were two different cases at least?

Did you even read my post??? I already said I have not paid any attention whatsoever to this, only thing I know about this is I have seen the video. I have not listened to even a one second of testimony.

 

Jesus man, I have thought many times of flying out to come out and help you out with you and your kis, And I feel horribly for your situation, but your time on this board makes you a more awful person every god damn day. Frankly, it does me too,

It was a focking joke, lighten up Francis.

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

The amount is high? This would be a HUGE verdict in a wrongful death case or a case where someone was permanently mangled by a defective product. Most of those folks couldn't dream of approaching $55 million. So how does anywhere near that much money make sense for Andrews?

 

I get her privacy was compromised. But sweet Jesus there is a cap to what that's worth and I think it's far, FAR less than what she was awarded

 

I would like to know how the jury came up with that number. Also, I would consider how much money this has generated for porn sites and the like, that would definitely figure into my calculations, in addition to the damage to career, future earnings.

 

But before all that, I would really like to get more opinions from people who haven't listened to any testimony or followed the case(not saying you) and hear what they have to say.

[wiffleball 4,647]

She will probably only get about $6 million after taxes...

 

Yeah, I just heard that on the radio too.

[Herbivore 905]

I don't see how her career has been hurt. Never a blip with working for ESPN, football or the spelling bee. National ad campaign for Probiotics. Dancing with the Stars. Good Morning America. This settlement and the claims of being a shell of herself will do more damage.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I don't see how her career has been hurt. Never a blip with working for ESPN, football or the spelling bee. National ad campaign for Probiotics. Dancing with the Stars. Good Morning America. This settlement and the claims of being a shell of herself will do more damage.

Might be her retirement package

[kutulu 1,551]

noted by the New York Daily News, one of the lawyers representing the hotel tried to suggest during cross examination that Andrews benefited from the leak of video taken of her by Barrett, saying that your income has gone up substantially since this occurred. The judge cut off the question, but the damage likely was done for the defense.That one question (along with the broader attitude it conveys) may explain the runaway nature of the verdict. Juries dont issue awards that large unless they are very upset. Its clear that, by the time the jury got the case, they were furious

 

Pft.com

[IGotWorms 3,317]

noted by the New York Daily News, one of the lawyers representing the hotel tried to suggest during cross examination that Andrews benefited from the leak of video taken of her by Barrett, saying that your income has gone up substantially since this occurred. The judge cut off the question, but the damage likely was done for the defense.That one question (along with the broader attitude it conveys) may explain the runaway nature of the verdict. Juries dont issue awards that large unless they are very upset. Its clear that, by the time the jury got the case, they were furious

 

Pft.com

That was incredibly stupid, if true. You want the jury to be thinking about it but you never want to outright state it.