Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > Marriott | Rewards
Reload this Page >

Erin Andrews sues Marriott & Radisson

Erin Andrews sues Marriott & Radisson

 
Old Oct 23, 15, 7:25 am
  #31  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 827
not only apples and oranges but apples and baseball bats!

another Law & Order armchair lawyer want-a-bee

cited, State of California law mandated upon the states DMV vrs.
a private company doing business in Nashville, TN

and I have NO idea what My Sister Sam is although I do recall a Son of Sam.

Originally Posted by clarkef View Post

I would direct your attention to the case of murdered actress Rebecca Schaeffer, on the show "My Sister Sam". Her murderer obtained her address from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Because of her murder and other similar stalker situations California laws regarding the release of personal information through the DMV were drastically changed. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act was enacted in 1994, which prevents the DMV from releasing private addresses.

This case is illustrative of what can happen when strangers get your private information.
leeky is offline  
Old Oct 23, 15, 7:58 am
  #32  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan, Canada & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 49,073
Originally Posted by leeky View Post
and I have NO idea what My Sister Sam is although I do recall a Son of Sam.
It was a sitcom whose star was killed by a stalker who obtained her address from the DMV leading in 1990 to the U.S. first anti-stalking law and much greater awareness of the importance of proper privacy laws.

There's more on Andrews new lawsuit here.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 15, 4:42 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: Starwood Platinum, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Silver
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by leeky View Post
not only apples and oranges but apples and baseball bats!

another Law & Order armchair lawyer want-a-bee

cited, State of California law mandated upon the states DMV vrs.
a private company doing business in Nashville, TN

and I have NO idea what My Sister Sam is although I do recall a Son of Sam.
Actually. A practicing attorney of 16 years, with substantial appellate and litigation practice, currently litigating a multi-million dollar, international transactional matter against a Silicon Valley mega-law firm.

I assume you are versed in the concept of an analogy. You asked what the egregious action was and I used one to explain that the action complained of herein by Marriott is ( wait for it ) analogous to the actions in the My Sister Sam case, i.e. giving personal domicile information to a stranger who used that information for ill, which profoundly changed the privacy laws in America's most populous state over 20 years ago.

A reasonable jury is can easily conclude that Marriott was on notice via the highly publicized murder in that case and others, that giving out a guest's private information is a very bad idea. Further, for several decades, industry standard has been not to give out guests room numbers to strangers
clarkef is offline  
Old Oct 25, 15, 11:19 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redondo Beach, CA USA
Programs: UA 1KMM, Bonvoy LTE+A, HH D, Nat'l EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,912
I'm *not* a lawyer, but can't Marriott very simply and effectively argue that it is and has always been their corporate policy not to give out guests' personal information (like room numbers), and the associate who violated that policy is the one to blame here, not the corporation?
DJ_Iceman is offline  
Old Oct 25, 15, 11:32 pm
  #35  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 827
sure, good question too

just like the other questions like was the associate an employee of the hotel, which Marriott likely only manages since I don't think they still own but a handful, if even that, or was he/she a Marriott employee

and, along with a slew of other questions and defenses, even if taking the news post as givens, was it reasonably foreseeable that the alleged stalker renting the next door room was going to (1) drill a peep hole and (2) video tape what he was watching.



Originally Posted by DJ_Iceman View Post
I'm *not* a lawyer, but can't Marriott very simply and effectively argue that it is and has always been their corporate policy not to give out guests' personal information (like room numbers), and the associate who violated that policy is the one to blame here, not the corporation?

Last edited by leeky; Oct 26, 15 at 5:17 am
leeky is offline  
Old Oct 26, 15, 4:51 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: Starwood Platinum, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Silver
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by DJ_Iceman View Post
I'm *not* a lawyer, but can't Marriott very simply and effectively argue that it is and has always been their corporate policy not to give out guests' personal information (like room numbers), and the associate who violated that policy is the one to blame here, not the corporation?
That is unlikely to prevail. There is a concept in law called Respondeat Superior. Basically, the actions performed by employee within the scope of his or her employment are attributed to the employer.

In this case, since the clerk was acting (perhaps negligently) four square within the scope of his employment as clerk, any liability for his negligence would easily be attributed to his employer.

Last edited by clarkef; Oct 26, 15 at 4:58 am
clarkef is offline  
Old Oct 26, 15, 5:17 am
  #37  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 827
yes, respondent superior for the employer, but WHO is the FDCs employer?

the hotel owner that paid the clerks salary and issued him a W-2 each year or the management who did not pay the FDC?

or are you now gonna claim that the hotel owner is the agent/straw person of Marriott (actually the reverse).

I'm finished here as I had torts and contracts 33 years ago and this is just giving me a headache !!

Originally Posted by clarkef View Post
That is unlikely to prevail. There is a concept in law called Respondeat Superior. Basically, the actions performed by employee within the scope of his or her employment are attributed to the employer.

In this case, since the clerk was acting (perhaps negligently) four square within the scope of his employment as clerk, any liability for his negligence would easily be attributed to his employer.
leeky is offline  
Old Oct 26, 15, 12:05 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: Starwood Platinum, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Silver
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by leeky View Post
yes, respondent superior for the employer, but WHO is the FDCs employer?

the hotel owner that paid the clerks salary and issued him a W-2 each year or the management who did not pay the FDC?

or are you now gonna claim that the hotel owner is the agent/straw person of Marriott (actually the reverse).

I'm finished here as I had torts and contracts 33 years ago and this is just giving me a headache !!
As this case has been dragging for years, i would assume, but have not verified, that the Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that Marriott is a proper party in this matter. If they hadn't, we can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Marriott's big firm attorneys would have long since filed the appropriate dispositive motions to extricate Marriott from this litigation.
clarkef is offline  
Old Feb 29, 16, 7:17 pm
  #39  
FSU
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 368
Erin Andrews testifies today during her trial against Marriott.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/erin-andrew...ry?id=37290228
FSU is offline  
Old Mar 1, 16, 8:47 am
  #40  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 66,469
Originally Posted by clarkef View Post
As this case has been dragging for years, i would assume, but have not verified, that the Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that Marriott is a proper party in this matter. If they hadn't, we can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Marriott's big firm attorneys would have long since filed the appropriate dispositive motions to extricate Marriott from this litigation.
Marriott was dropped from the lawsuit. "Additionally, Andrews sued Marriott International, but a circuit court judge dismissed that suit, ruling that a hotel chain could not be held responsible for security at a local franchise."

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Mar 2, 16, 10:15 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CLT
Programs: Marriott Plat, AA Gold
Posts: 1,063
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock View Post
Marriott was dropped from the lawsuit. "Additionally, Andrews sued Marriott International, but a circuit court judge dismissed that suit, ruling that a hotel chain could not be held responsible for security at a local franchise."

Cheers.
True but to be fair, that just happened this year, so it still did "drag on for years" with Marriott involved
GoPhils is offline  
Old Mar 2, 16, 11:01 am
  #42  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 66,469
Well Marriott Int'l is off the hook $$wise I think by being dropped. But its name/brand isn't being helped. I just read a legal analyst responding to some ?s & he was going on about the poor strategy (Nashville) Marriott's team utilized today* and he kept using generic Marriott. Also that he was surprised that (Marriott) didn't just settle.

*Saying the incident/public blow-up helped her career/financially. Given she was already successful that's a bit hard to prove. However, her career didn't really suffer too much & she's still working in said profession, so her best bet for judgment is the emotional suffering was his take-away. That she'll get some millions but not $75 million.

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Mar 2, 16, 11:34 am
  #43  
Community Director
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Anywhere warm
Posts: 29,736
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock View Post
*Saying the incident/public blow-up helped her career/financially. .
And that justifies giving a man a room next to her who then filmed her thru a peephole and posted videos online? Disgusting. Whether it helped her name recognition or not is beside the point.
SanDiego1K is offline  
Old Mar 2, 16, 11:59 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AUS
Programs: AA PLT, Amex Plat
Posts: 4,319
Originally Posted by SanDiego1K View Post
And that justifies giving a man a room next to her who then filmed her thru a peephole and posted videos online? Disgusting. Whether it helped her name recognition or not is beside the point.
That is not at all what SkiAdcock said and you know that. Furthermore, it's not at all beside the point, and you decreeing it so, doesn't in fact make it so. Actually, it's exactly the point and is part of the legal claim her counsel is making.

I don't think anyone here has said actions were "justified." However, whether you like it or not, or whether it makes you angry or not, one of the lynch pins of Ms. Andrew's claims is that this incident harmed her career trajectory and/or financial earning since the incident occurred. No sane person evaluating the data regarding Ms. Andrew's career since the incident occurred (e.g lured from ESPN to Fox Sports, landed "DWTS" gig, etc.) would likely draw that conclusion.

Again, that does not in anyway, justify what happened to her, and her legal team could have chosen to pursue a different path of claims, but they chose this one and the data simply doesn't support it.

Regards
scubadu is offline  
Old Mar 2, 16, 1:40 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 2,770
Originally Posted by scubadu View Post
...Ms. Andrew's claims is that this incident harmed her career trajectory and/or financial earning since the incident occurred.
Haven't read this...please cite source.
Troopers is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: