Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Erin Andrews awarded $55 million in Marriott lawsuit
Sports Illustrated (wire) ^ | March 7, 2016

Posted on 03/07/2016 3:27:31 PM PST by ConservativeStatement

A jury awarded $55 million to Fox Sports reporter Erin Andrews in her lawsuit against a Nashville Marriott hotel on Monday.

Andrews sued the hotel alleging it acted negligently when allowing a man who was stalking her to book the room next to hers and surreptitiously film nude videos of her in 2008 while she worked for ESPN. The stalker, Michael David Barrett, posted the videos online and pleaded guilty to stalking charges, for which he was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

(Excerpt) Read more at si.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: andrews; lawsuit; marriott; yougogirl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-179 next last
To: ealgeone; Blue Jays; Pelham

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


101 posted on 03/07/2016 4:45:29 PM PST by wardaddy (Ted Cruz endorser of Rubio is off my Christmas list......both beloved by donor class unlike Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: fireman15

Is it OK if I post them on the web?


102 posted on 03/07/2016 4:48:14 PM PST by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Do I look like I need the peephole satisfaction...lol

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.

103 posted on 03/07/2016 4:50:19 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

How was this remotely Marriott’s fault?


104 posted on 03/07/2016 4:51:36 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." --Samuel Clemens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

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


105 posted on 03/07/2016 4:52:43 PM PST by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CaptainMorgantown

What state was this in? If the state recognizes joint and several liability, then the hotel chain gets hit with the whole $55 million.


106 posted on 03/07/2016 4:53:17 PM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Tennessee, I believe.


107 posted on 03/07/2016 4:56:08 PM PST by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cyclone59

“Well McDonald never paid and was secretly settled.”

If it was settled, secretly or not, McDonalds paid the settlement.


108 posted on 03/07/2016 4:56:44 PM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/10/16/fox-sports-erin-andrews-seeking-75-million-in-peephole-lawsuit/


109 posted on 03/07/2016 5:08:26 PM PST by ConservativeStatement ("World Peace 1.20.09.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CaptainMorgantown

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.


110 posted on 03/07/2016 5:08:43 PM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Pelham; ealgeone

wardaddy...good post above, thank you.
I have no idea why ealgeone attacked me and others for no reason.


111 posted on 03/07/2016 5:15:00 PM PST by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

For that kind of money, those videos should have been on pay-per-view...


112 posted on 03/07/2016 5:18:51 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Marriott should appeal.


113 posted on 03/07/2016 5:19:20 PM PST by SoFloFreeper (I am undecided between Cruz, Rubio & Trump...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“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.


114 posted on 03/07/2016 5:19:33 PM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (It's the apocalypse, lets have some fun!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays; wardaddy; Pelham
I'll tell you why.

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.

115 posted on 03/07/2016 5:19:51 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"Dates." Nice verb.

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...

116 posted on 03/07/2016 5:20:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude

She had a good attorney.


117 posted on 03/07/2016 5:20:47 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Toughluck_freeper

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.


118 posted on 03/07/2016 5:23:20 PM PST by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone; wardaddy; Pelham

Nice follow-up ad hominem attack to your earlier baseless ad hominem attacks, ealgeone.

119 posted on 03/07/2016 5:23:54 PM PST by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph; Pilgrim's Progress
Eye bleach, coming right up.


120 posted on 03/07/2016 5:24:32 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson