Posted on 03/07/2016 3:27:31 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
Let me guess you’re a Cruz zealot
The self righteous go personal right out of the gate....it’s such a tell
Check out my home page
Do I look like I need the peephole satisfaction...lol
Be sweet
You’ll have more friends
Is it OK if I post them on the web?
You said you saw it so I guess you need something. LOL.
Maybe you and ol' slick willy should hang out!
Would you want your wife to be filmed naked and then have the video all over the internet??
It's a simple yes or no.
How was this remotely Marriott’s fault?
Throw a million on the dresser and tell her to GTFO. This is what the judge should have done. Her “humiliation” is not worth more that half a mil
What state was this in? If the state recognizes joint and several liability, then the hotel chain gets hit with the whole $55 million.
Tennessee, I believe.
“Well McDonald never paid and was secretly settled.”
If it was settled, secretly or not, McDonalds paid the settlement.
From what I gather:
Andrews alleges that Marriott workers helped facilitate Barrett’s videotaping by first revealing that she was a guest at the Nashville hotel, then disclosing her room number, and finally by agreeing to Barrett’s request to be placed in the room next door to the broadcaster. Andrews, then working for ESPN, was in town to cover a Vanderbilt University football game.
Tennessee does not recognize joint and several liability except in products liability cases and in some instances where there was intentional collusion among the defendants, neither of which existed in the Erin Andrews case. So, it sounds like Marriott (or more likely its insurers) is on the hook for $27 million, which they will appeal.
For that kind of money, those videos should have been on pay-per-view...
Marriott should appeal.
“Easy. As they did not protect her privacy in the room video of her being naked is all over the internet. You’ve probably seen it I bet.”
I know what the violation is, its how she was damaged $55 million is the question. And No I havent seen it.
I find it sad that conservatives are not defending the honor of this woman who did nothing other than check into a hotel room and had her privacy violated which is now all over the internet for pervs to see.
That you don't find that a problem is telling.
We were quick to jump on ol' slick willy and were right to do so for his "women" issues.
Perhaps though, ya'll were in favor of what slick did to women.
I'll say this again. If it happened to any of the female members in your family you'd be ready to fight.
If not, then you need to head over to the daily beast because you are not conservatives.
I'm surprised the thread hasn't been overrun with those "I don't know if she's guilty without seeing a picture first" posts...
She had a good attorney.
Appeals will go on for years and years. Her attorney’s will pressure her relentlessly to settle for relative peanuts. It’s the way the system works. The attorney’s are partially right too because she could get thrown out at any time starting tomorrow with the trial judge.
Or, the “system” will have a little pow wow on the 18th green of the local country club with nobody writing ANYTHING down, no emails, no texts, no recordings (good ole boys only) and no talking to a non attorney (attorney-client privilege you know) and the whole thing (her jury verdict) will go down the toilet. Ben there, done that.
Some lawfirm in the state who’s job it is to ALWAYS maintain at least 4 votes on the State Supreme Court guarantees the outcome! She will NEVER know! Rest assured Marriott keeps this law firm on a retainer decade after decade for just this reason.
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.