Posted on 08/15/2009 8:08:41 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
A Connecticut hotel where a woman was raped at gunpoint in front of her children says the victim was careless and negligent.
The papers filed last month in Superior Court by the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa say the victim "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."
Prosecutors say Gary Fricker assaulted the woman in her minivan in the hotel's parking garage in front of her two children, then ages 3 and 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
One more thing, I think it's pretty crappy of the hotel to supoena (sp?) a bunch of her friends who had no knowledge of this crime. That is downright dirty.
Don’t you have insurance that protects you if someone gets injured on your property?
I remember a similar event happened at an Albertsons in California. The victim was assaulted by some homeless nutjob, the manager blamed him for it and even prevented him from calling 911. The criminal was even allowed to go free.
I think her attorney has it pegged. They’re trying to embarrass and humiliate her so she’ll just drop the suit.
Have you been paying attention the last 20 years? Judges and juries have been handing out billion dollar judgments like they are candy.
Some judge will say that the hotel knew or should have known and the Marriott will owe this woman millions of dollars.
The hotel owes it to their share holders to fight vigorously.
Secondly, why would the hotel need to call her pilates instructor as a witness unless they were just trying to humiliate her into submission? Sounds like an attempt to blame her for something rather than defend themselves.
Have you considered that perhaps they knew or should have known and that their failure to act did play a part in this? Do facts matter to you?
Thanks for the info.
Hey, I’m in PA too. Not a bad place.
of course. These days if everything goes wrong, you get a check from somebody.
Just got that. if the hotel was aware of a potential danger and did nothibg, that is the definition of negligence.
No, unless the Democratic Party National Convention was early this year....
The “Hotel failed to notice” who noticed it?
Interesting diction...
I’m going to vote for the victim here.
If I stay at a hotel, I expect that my security is part of the package deal. I will take normal care, but I expect the hotel also to do their job in keeping me safe.
If I get robbed in their hotel, including in their parking lot, they are going to hear from me. I expect them to secure the parking garage; after all, my car is there and I expect it to be there undamaged when I return.
If they skimp on security then they are asking for consequences. If they’ve done everything that could reasonably be done, and something bad happens anyway, then I would hold them blameless. That would be their hurdle to prove.
jla, asking parsy to please elaborate and explain
Yes they do. But we don’t have any.
For all we know this woman was attacked by this perv on his first visit to the parking garage.
As far as we know this woman is making unsubstantiated accusations.
But your response to my reasonable statement shows the potential effect that this case could have on a jury.
We have young mother ravaged in the presence of her very young children. What could evoke a more visceral response on a jury?
No matter what the facts are the jury will have in their mind that the Marriott knew or should have known that this perv was there and they should have done something to prevent the attack.
Whether the Marriott is at fault in fact or not they can expect to pay large sums to this woman if this case goes before a jury. Hence they are trying to persuade her to drop the case or they are attempting to persuade her that a relatively small sum would be preferable to the pain she is going through just to get to trial.
<judges and juries have been handing out billion dollar judgments like they are candy.
That’s what makes the front page. What doesn’t get front page coverage is the court’s reduction of the judgment. Happens all the time, it’s just not front page news. The woman in the McDonald’s coffee case did not get all the money she won in the original case.
You’re right.
But corporations still spend years in court and millions on defense and still end up paying for things that are not in fact their fault.
Consider in this case that the Marriott contracted out the management of the parking garage and expected that the parking garage would be well managed.
That firm most likely contracted to security firm to provide security for the garage expecting professionalism from that firm.
The courts will not allow a company to insulate themselves from liability this way but I think you can understand how the Marriott would in fact not really have known about this perv if he was in fact in the garage for days.
Yes, I agree. The original article didn’t give much info at all. Sheesh, no wonder Americans are woefully uninformed! Thanks for the ping back.
I have a client at office and will be tied up for a while. In the meantime, this will help explain a few things:
http://www.911law.com/identifying_defense_trial_tactics_mist.html
parsy, who is being a good little conservative and working
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.