Erin Andrews awarded $55 million by the jury

[CusefanATL]

So, all women have to wear makeup? I'll bet that your Mrs. wouldn't like that dictate.

No... But if that specific woman ALWAYS wears makeup in public but DOESNT in a court case that awards her $50 million more than what would be awarded a DEAD person - I'll call it an act. My wife agreed with me last night (which is rare )

And also, I fell in love with wife because I think she is beautiful without makeup -- sappy I know. And she looks great in Orange.

 

[Moontan]

It's likely that her court room level of makeup matched what she was wearing in her hotel room when the video was taken.

 

[CusefanATL]

It's likely that her court room level of makeup matched what she was wearing in her hotel room when the video was taken.

Thats a fair and funny point. I admit to watching the video back in the day - but won't watch it anymore to confirm because I do feel horrible for her. But i suspect you are right.

I just think she played too much of a part in the courtroom and am calling it how I see it. There is no reason for her to dress as bland as you have ever seen her. That is too random to be a coincidence. Her lawyer told he exactly how to dress and to look. And I dont think it was necessary. It tells me she had to win the case at all costs and extract as much money as possible - and dont forget it is supposedly $50 million more than a DEAD person would receive. So i think the extreme excessive amount of money and her Claire Underwooding the courtroom leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Cowtown]

Her lawyer told he exactly how to dress and to look.

Certainly not the first time something like that's happened. Stan Dragoti's lawyer told his stunningly beautiful wife* not to attend his drug possession trial in Germany for fear it might influence the judge.

*

I suspect, as his lawyer, we'd have both advised the same.

 

[leftytg]

Yes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability

I don't think joint and several liability applies in this case, as TN, has done away with it in most civil cases.

http://search.mleesmith.com/tca/29-11-0107.html

The jury found the perv to be 51% at fault and the hotel 49%. The hotel's damages are maxed out at $26 million. The perv is most likely judgment proof.

 

[leftytg]

Thats a fair and funny point. I admit to watching the video back in the day - but won't watch it anymore to confirm because I do feel horrible for her. But i suspect you are right.

I just think she played too much of a part in the courtroom and am calling it how I see it. There is no reason for her to dress as bland as you have ever seen her. That is too random to be a coincidence. Her lawyer told he exactly how to dress and to look. And I dont think it was necessary. It tells me she had to win the case at all costs and extract as much money as possible - and dont forget it is supposedly $50 million more than a DEAD person would receive. So i think the extreme excessive amount of money and her Claire Underwooding the courtroom leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

are you going to levy the same criticism against the lawyers in the case? I mean, they could have shown up in a tuxedo, or one of those vintage suits like in My Cousin Vinny, or wore a florescent orange tie and purple vest. The reason they didn't? Because the lawyers didn't want to influence the jury in a negative way.

Criticizing the dress of the victim of a crime like this is gross.

 

[Cusefan0307]

So if this happened to my girlfriend, or some of your wives, would they of received this amount of money?

 

[manleyzoo]

Thats a fair and funny point. I admit to watching the video back in the day - but won't watch it anymore to confirm because I do feel horrible for her. But i suspect you are right.

I just think she played too much of a part in the courtroom and am calling it how I see it. There is no reason for her to dress as bland as you have ever seen her. That is too random to be a coincidence. Her lawyer told he exactly how to dress and to look. And I dont think it was necessary. It tells me she had to win the case at all costs and extract as much money as possible - and dont forget it is supposedly $50 million more than a DEAD person would receive. So i think the extreme excessive amount of money and her Claire Underwooding the courtroom leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

So if you're calling it as you see it, you must also have investigated the amount and style of makeup the female jurors wore so as not to give off any sense of partiality one way or another. Of course you examined the same for the female witnesses. And, you noted how her lawyers male or female were dressed and appeared as well as the defendants to see their predispositions as well. That would only be fair, right? After all, everyone knows that conclusions about a person's, and, in particular a woman's, motivation in bringing a right to privacy lawsuit are revealed by how she's dressed and the amount of makeup she wears in the courtroom. And, if it pales next to how she presents herself in her professional life, in this case, on camera, well then that's a dead giveaway.

Way to go reinforcing stereotypes that the seriousness of a woman's case is tainted by her appearance, no matter how professional, and her makeup. I suppose her shoes, hair style and skirt length also were subliminal indicators of her true motivation and the validity of her lawsuit.

 

[721Comstock]

So if this happened to my girlfriend, or some of your wives, would they of received this amount of money?

No.

Because (I'm probably safely assuming) that none of these other women are public personalities known by tens of millions of people.

Nor would images & video of the incident likely have been seen by tens of millions of people.

While it would be no less traumatic and awful for ANY woman to have this happen,
it would not have nearly the widespread impact of what occurred here.

As spectacular as this settlement sounds, she'll likely never get a penny from the perp, and probably have to settle for a portion of what the hotel's liability is.

 

[CusefanATL]

So if you're calling it as you see it, you must also have investigated the amount and style of makeup the female jurors wore so as not to give off any sense of partiality one way or another. Of course you examined the same for the female witnesses. And, you noted how her lawyers male or female were dressed and appeared as well as the defendants to see their predispositions as well. That would only be fair, right? After all, everyone knows that conclusions about a person's, and, in particular a woman's, motivation in bringing a right to privacy lawsuit are revealed by how she's dressed and the amount of makeup she wears in the courtroom. And, if it pales next to how she presents herself in her professional life, in this case, on camera, well then that's a dead giveaway.

Way to go reinforcing stereotypes that the seriousness of a woman's case is tainted by her appearance, no matter how professional, and her makeup. I suppose her shoes, hair style and skirt length also were subliminal indicators of her true motivation and the validity of her lawsuit.

That is insane. Stereotypes? What?

I look at how she professionally dresses all the time and compare it to how she dressed in the court room. Find me a picture of when she was in public that she wore that little makeup?

If anything, she is reinforcing the stereotypes in her everyday life. Not me, bud.

And FYI: as you can see, I clearly think the lawsuit was validated by the facts. I only think $55 million is outrageous and inappropriate. There is no reason for it to be more than a few million. The entire point (and in my previous posts) is that she turned it into a win at all costs and get every single penny possible by dressing a certain way. She made herself bland to help her case. I didnt.

 

[bpo57]

I don't think joint and several liability applies in this case, as TN, has done away with it in most civil cases.

http://search.mleesmith.com/tca/29-11-0107.html

The jury found the perv to be 51% at fault and the hotel 49%. The hotel's damages are maxed out at $26 million. The perv is most likely judgment proof.

That is what I figured.

 

[CusefanATL]

are you going to levy the same criticism against the lawyers in the case? I mean, they could have shown up in a tuxedo, or one of those vintage suits like in My Cousin Vinny, or wore a florescent orange tie and purple vest. The reason they didn't? Because the lawyers didn't want to influence the jury in a negative way.

Criticizing the dress of the victim of a crime like this is gross.

Do they normally dress up as My Cousin Vinny for other cases and changed their look for this specific case?

 

[Hoov50]

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

I am far from an expert on this case, but I did see in an article that the franchisee owner was the one being sued not Marriott. As many have pointed out, for their "lesser" brands Marriott basically sells their name to local franchisees throughout the country. I believe most or all JW Marriotts and Renaissance Hotels are corporately owned, but many of their other brands (they have 19) are not.

 

[CusefanATL]

I don't think joint and several liability applies in this case, as TN, has done away with it in most civil cases.

http://search.mleesmith.com/tca/29-11-0107.html

The jury found the perv to be 51% at fault and the hotel 49%. The hotel's damages are maxed out at $26 million. The perv is most likely judgment proof.

Can you confirm that there would have been a max of ~$5million had she died? That has been discussed widely on twitter and radio, but I dont see it in writing anywhere.

 

[manleyzoo]

That is insane. Stereotypes? What?

I look at how she professionally dresses all the time and compare it to how she dressed in the court room. Find me a picture of when she was in public that she wore that little makeup?

If anything, she is reinforcing the stereotypes in her everyday life. Not me, bud.

Bud? Nice touch. So the stereotype that professional women have been fighting for years and years and years that their appearance as judged by men is a factor in determining their motivation and professionalism is something unaware to you? And, now you're accusing her of reinforcing stereotypes herself? What, exactly, would those stereotypes be that she's reinforcing, bud? The makeup thing is as stupid and irrelevant as the Trump hand size debate topic.

 

[CusefanATL]

Bud? Nice touch. So the stereotype that professional women have been fighting for years and years and years that their appearance as judged by men is a factor in determining their motivation and professionalism is something unaware to you? And, now you're accusing her of reinforcing stereotypes herself? What, exactly, would those stereotypes be that she's reinforcing, bud? The makeup thing is as stupid and irrelevant as the Trump hand size debate topic.

I really don't care enough to debate it. If you didn't notice that as being odd in a $75 million lawsuit, I guess you're a better person than I. I must be sexist.

 

[orangecuse]

I don't think joint and several liability applies in this case, as TN, has done away with it in most civil cases.

http://search.mleesmith.com/tca/29-11-0107.html

The jury found the perv to be 51% at fault and the hotel 49%. The hotel's damages are maxed out at $26 million. The perv is most likely judgment proof.

My response was based on the general question asked...and responded accordingly by providing the concept/principle of the applied law. As with any general principle, each state's legislature can write stipulations in their respective general statutes, which it appears Tennessee has done.

 

[leftytg]

My response was based on the general question asked...and responded accordingly by providing the concept/principle of the applied law. As with any general principle, each state's legislature can write stipulations in their respective general statutes, which it appears Tennessee has done.

Agreed. I have no quarrel with your response. I was just chipping in with some additional info.

 

[orangecuse]

are you going to levy the same criticism against the lawyers in the case? I mean, they could have shown up in a tuxedo, or one of those vintage suits like in My Cousin Vinny, or wore a florescent orange tie and purple vest. The reason they didn't? Because the lawyers didn't want to influence the jury in a negative way.

Criticizing the dress of the victim of a crime like this is gross.

In all due respect, trials, especially ones of persona, fame, etc. are theater. Theatrics of all sorts are consistently carried out/on in order to hopefully influence/persuade the jury to your liking. If you don't think dressing Erin down, so to speak, was not a direct and conscious ploy on behalf of the plaintiff attorney, than that's being a bit naive. There's a reason why an attractive woman (plaintiff) is advised to dress very conservatively in rape cases, etc. at trials. Or, why a defendant on trial who commits a violent crime wears a suit, gets his hair cut, cleaned up. It's to paint a certain image/picture in hope of getting the jury to view them in a particular, more beneficial way. It is always intentional.

 

[leftytg]

Can you confirm that there would have been a max of ~$5million had she died? That has been discussed widely on twitter and radio, but I dont see it in writing anywhere.

as far as damages, I believe that is true on the compensatory damages side, but does not take into account potential punitive damages which would, of course, depend heavily on the manner and circumstances of the wrongful death.

 

[Forloveoforange]

A few weeks ago, I was interviewed along with 7 other potential jurors by the attorney of a woman suing over her injury at a store. The lawyer asked us if we believed in settlements. I spoke up and said it depends on the amount. He said the jury chooses the amount, and we only want what's fair. Did he lie that the jury chooses the amount? If so, should I sue?

 

[leftytg]

A few weeks ago, I was interviewed along with 7 other potential jurors by the attorney of a woman suing over her injury at a store. The lawyer asked us if we believed in settlements. I spoke up and said it depends on the amount. He said the jury chooses the amount, and we only want what's fair. Did he lie that the jury chooses the amount? If so, should I sue?

a settlement is an agreement between the parties and takes place outside the purview of the courtroom.
Regarding a verdict, a jury can determine the amount. Andrews asked for $75 million and was awarded $55 million by the jury.

 

[leftytg]

In all due respect, trials, especially ones of persona, fame, etc. are theater. Theatrics of all sorts are consistently carried out/on in order to hopefully influence/persuade the jury to your liking. If you don't think dressing Erin down, so to speak, was not a direct and conscious ploy on behalf of the plaintiff attorney, than that's being a bit naive. There's a reason why an attractive woman (plaintiff) is advised to dress very conservatively in rape cases, etc. at trials. Or, why a defendant on trial who commits a violent crime wears a suit, gets his hair cut, cleaned up. It's to paint a certain image/picture in hope of getting the jury to view them in a particular, more beneficial way. It is always intentional.

i agree with this 1000% and it is so obvious as to be beyond contention in my book. My objection was to the poster singling out Andrews and insinuating that she was acting fraudulently in dressing "down". My point was that everyone who mattered in that courtroom was doing the same thing. It's the reason why attorneys are known to show up in cowboy boots in certain jurisdictions in Texas, for instance.

Andrews dressing as she did warrants no criticism. People dress for occasion all the time. You can dress one way for work, another way for a cocktail party, another way for a birthday party and another way for wedding. People dress a certain way for court. To accuse the victim of a crime where her naked body was plastered over the internet and seen, conservatively, 17 million times, of manipulation because she dressed conservatively for court (where, oh by the way a bunch of strangers would be talking about her naked body), and ignore that - literally - everyone else in that room was dressing a certain way for similar motives is, as I said, gross.

 

[CusefanATL]

i agree with this 1000% and it is so obvious as to be beyond contention in my book. My objection was to the poster singling out Andrews and insinuating that she was acting fraudulently in dressing "down". My point was that everyone who mattered in that courtroom was doing the same thing. It's the reason why attorneys are known to show up in cowboy boots in certain jurisdictions in Texas, for instance.

Andrews dressing as she did warrants no criticism. People dress for occasion all the time. You can dress one way for work, another way for a cocktail party, another way for a birthday party and another way for wedding. People dress a certain way for court. To accuse the victim of a crime where her naked body was plastered over the internet and seen, conservatively, 17 million times, of manipulation because she dressed conservatively for court (where, oh by the way a bunch of strangers would be talking about her naked body), and ignore that - literally - everyone else in that room was dressing a certain way for similar motives is, as I said, gross.

I understand your point and I may have been too harsh in the fact that it was an act to get every penny possible. But it was so overwhelmingly obvious, that it just left a bad taste to me. We can see Erin Andrews 4x a week and she always looks like a million bucks and has style. But she comes to court looking homely and dressed like my Grandmother. I had to take a double take. I don't know, I just don't see the reason for it. She sold her soul, but wasn't trying to avoid serious jailtime. She was just trying to get an obscene and ridiculous amount of money that she probably wont even see. The moral of the story is that I hate the law games. Just put the facts out and decide the outcome. And its the money that drives me crazy much more than her look.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

So her case is diminished and her damages disproportionate to the crime because you believe more murders and assaults took place in hotels than invasions of privacy. Of course, you have no evidence to support your certainty. Even if you did, how, in any way, does that make her case, or the award, inappropriate? You surmise unrelated incidents without supporting facts and assume corresponding awards because you're sure and you're guessing...Are you saying the jury should have considered guesses of unrelated incidents in making their ruling?

The right to privacy is the "right to be left alone," implied in a number of places in the constitution. It's in the same class as identify theft not murder or assault of any nature.

This is a discussion thread, not a court of law. Please find evidence that there were zero murders and sexual assaults in hotel rooms last year and I'll admit I'm wrong. Doubtful that is the case. I'm making a fairly reasonable assumption.