Erin Andrews awarded $55 million by the jury

[orangehomer]

i think the hotel is definitely on the hook if it was proved that the staff told the pervert guy what room she was staying in. that's pretty bad. as far as the dollar numbers, i think you could argue that she, as a public figure, was more damaged than an average person by this act. take away the "emotional suffering" part of it, which i believe is real (i travel and stay in hotels alot for work and if my privacy was violated i would likely struggle with staying in hotel rooms), but this act may have damaged her career and how do you quantify that when a person works in a high-exposure, high-risk high-reward type industry. maybe she could have been a sideline reporter at the superbowl but was slowed down. maybe she could have been a crossover star but was derailed. i don't know, it's hard to say how much money that could mean to a realtively young person over a long period of time. actually it's not that hard to say, because that is what the court awarded her.

 

[Eric15]

Facts of the case: a perv got ahold of Erin's room number and installedIf it were a normal person it probably never gets noticed and most certainly doesn't have any media coverage. (I'm not condoning it, just stating the reality of the world we live in).

16 million people viewed the video, thus humiliating Erin orders of magnitude more than if it was a normal person who this happened to.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

i think the hotel is definitely on the hook if it was proved that the staff told the pervert guy what room she was staying in. that's pretty bad. as far as the dollar numbers, i think you could argue that she, as a public figure, was more damaged than an average person by this act. take away the "emotional suffering" part of it, which i believe is real (i travel and stay in hotels alot for work and if my privacy was violated i would likely struggle with staying in hotel rooms), but this act may have damaged her career and how do you quantify that when a person works in a high-exposure, high-risk high-reward type industry. maybe she could have been a sideline reporter at the superbowl but was slowed down. maybe she could have been a crossover star but was derailed. i don't know, it's hard to say how much money that could mean to a realtively young person over a long period of time. actually it's not that hard to say, because that is what the court awarded her.

But her career wasn't effected by this incident. One could argue the opposite. A simple review of her tax filings since the story broke would answer that question. You can't argue hypothetical effect on earnings. Either she made more or less money since the incident.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

16 million people viewed the video, thus humiliating Erin orders of magnitude more than if it was a normal person who this happened to.

Yes. But you're basically saying that because she's a celebrity than she's entitled to more damages than a normal person. I don't think that should be the case.

 

[bpo57]

But her career wasn't effected by this incident. One could argue the opposite. A simple review of her tax filings since the story broke would answer that question. You can't argue hypothetical effect on earnings. Either she made more or less money since the incident.

Can't agree with you here. 17 million people viewing that video is an incredible violation of her right to privacy. Providing the perp with her room # was insane and then management's actions afterward were disgusting. They're getting what they deserved. That said, half of the judgment is owed by the perp and that # will never be collected.

 

[bpo57]

Yes. But you're basically saying that because she's a celebrity than she's entitled to more damages than a normal person. I don't think that should be the case.

If she weren't a celeb then about 16.99 million less people would have viewed that video.

 

[orangehomer]

But her career wasn't effected by this incident. One could argue the opposite. A simple review of her tax filings since the story broke would answer that question. You can't argue hypothetical effect on earnings. Either she made more or less money since the incident.

but isn't that kind of a short-term way of looking at it, rather than trying to consider how it would affect her future earnings? i'm not a lawyer, i am just asking.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

If she weren't a celeb then about 16.99 million less people would have viewed that video.

I don't think celebs should get special treatment in the eyes of the law, but that's just me.

 

[orangehomer]

Yes. But you're basically saying that because she's a celebrity than she's entitled to more damages than a normal person. I don't think that should be the case.

i don't think that the argument is that she is entitled to more because she is a celebrity, i think the argument is that she was more damaged because she is a celebrity.

 

[bpo57]

I don't think celebs should get special treatment in the eyes of the law, but that's just me.

But her suffering is mutliples greater than what a Jane Doe would incur.

I am a big proponent of tort reform but with this one I say right on.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

but isn't that kind of a short-term way of looking at it, rather than trying to consider how it would affect her future earnings? i'm not a lawyer, i am just asking.

How is it short term? She's gotten jobs at Fox and ABC since she left ESPN. I'm not sure what the future holds for her, but it's hard to see how this incident will effect her future earnings if it hasn't yet done so.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

i don't think that the argument is that she is entitled to more because she is a celebrity, i think the argument is that she was more damaged because she is a celebrity.

Where, emotionally? It hasn't damaged her earnings potential.

Jury basically said celebs are worth more than a normal person. I disagree with that logic.

 

[orangehomer]

Where, emotionally? It hasn't damaged her earnings potential.

Jury basically said celebs are worth more than a normal person. I disagree with that logic.

i guess the crux of it is how can you definitively state that it hasn't damaged her earnings potential. it's not actually about "celebs" versus "normal" people, it is about people that have a high earnings potential versus people that have an average earnings potential. i think it could be argued that a person with high earnings potential is more at risk of this type of offense (and no one has argued that it didn't happen) than a person of average income potential. i don't like the word unprecedented, but it might be a case without a clear precedent.

 

[AZOrange]

Marriott doesn't really own hotels

They lend their brand and booking system. Some owner/operator is probably done

This will probably bankrupt the hotel and alter the lives of hundreds of employees

Maybe they get rehired by the new Mgmt that will inevitably take over

No winners here

But $55m is utterly absurd

I thought they were still in the case. I guess they were dismissed. I thought Marriott was one brand that still maintained a lot of corp ownership. Maybe that's in their higher end brand.

Well it'll be good that the hotel will be under new management/ownership.

 

[Cowtown]

Yes. But you're basically saying that because she's a celebrity than she's entitled to more damages than a normal person. I don't think that should be the case.

I think it does matter. I appreciate the need for equality before the law, but he didn't ask which room Ruth Jones was staying in. He targeted a celebrity, and thus her status as such has bearing on the case.

 

[Cowtown]

Where, emotionally? It hasn't damaged her earnings potential.

Jury basically said celebs are worth more than a normal person. I disagree with that logic.

It has to do with trying to assess the degree of the injury/loss, in order to assign damages proportionately. Civil law is often pragmatic that way.

 

[Jake]

Jake, you by all accounts are a very reasonable person. The fact that you (and probably millions of other reasonable people like you) think that theres a chance she could have done this on purpose is all the more reason why she deserves every cent of that money.

And for the record, I have no issues with the $55M award. Not only for the reason you state, but also for the way the hotel management acted during the trial.

 

[realorange]

I would like to know what her separation deal with ESPN was. There inference that she was doing this as a PR stunt was more than enough for a lawsuit.

 

[Newhouser]

How much does everyone think Hulk Hogan is going to get in his case vs Gawker? What's he asking for $100 million?

 

[Ghost]

How is it short term? She's gotten jobs at Fox and ABC since she left ESPN. I'm not sure what the future holds for her, but it's hard to see how this incident will effect her future earnings if it hasn't yet done so.

Exactly. By any reasonable measure her career took off because of this. People are acting like it's 1986 and naked pictures of celebrities were something people gave a crap about.
99.87% of people that viewed this probably viewed it with the same interest level they have when FB highlights a story about Kim K tweeting a picture of her butt. People don't care, it's mildly interesting at best.
Her only damage is emotional. And she deserves to be compensated well for that,but this much is clearly just an indication of peopl valuing celebs more because they're rich and super - interesting.
Even the 17 million views, who cares? The backlash is probably far worse for some lady that works at state Farm and has 100% of her co-workers and neighbors potentially seeing that. And she'd get a couple hundred thousand. People got bent out of shape because of all the riches some lady got because McDs serves coffee at 80,000 degrees and burned her ****** off, but this seemingly makes sense.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Yeah, I watched the video.

 

[Orangeman]

For people wondering, this is why the award is so high. Thoughts and attitudes like that have dogged her and will dog her for the rest of her life. It's gotta be pretty miserable to have people at large thinking that there's the possibility you're a slutty attention whore.

Why didn't she sue the Iowa fans who grabbed her straight up on National Television...that seems worse to me

Probably because there were no deep pockets

(I'm overall sensitive to the situation...but this outcome is just another sign of the decline of our civilization).

$55m, give me a break

 

[Orangeman]

I thought they were still in the case. I guess they were dismissed. I thought Marriott was one brand that still maintained a lot of corp ownership. Maybe that's in their higher end brand.

Well it'll be good that the hotel will be under new management/ownership.

I didn't follow the details, but Marriott owns very few of their hotels now so odds are this ain't one of 'em

 

[PhatOrange]

Exactly. By any reasonable measure her career took off because of this. People are acting like it's 1986 and naked pictures of celebrities were something people gave a crap about.
99.87% of people that viewed this probably viewed it with the same interest level they have when FB highlights a story about Kim K tweeting a picture of her butt. People don't care, it's mildly interesting at best.
Her only damage is emotional. And she deserves to be compensated well for that,but this much is clearly just an indication of peopl valuing celebs more because they're rich and super - interesting.
Even the 17 million views, who cares? The backlash is probably far worse for some lady that works at state Farm and has 100% of her co-workers and neighbors potentially seeing that. And she'd get a couple hundred thousand. People got bent out of shape because of all the riches some lady got because McDs serves coffee at 80,000 degrees and burned her ****** off, but this seemingly makes sense.

the teacher who just had to resign because a kid stole a nudie off her cell phone and passed it around is far more damaging than what happened to erin andrews. that kid might have ruined this teachers life. erin andrews not so much. the teacher should sue somebody.

 

[PhatOrange]

Do the hotels that you invest in compromise guest's security by giving out information of where they're staying and allow total strangers to stay next door? If so, you should probably call them and tell them not to do that.

maybe they didn't think he was a total stranger to her. he probably made up a story no? i ask to be next to my friends all the time.