spainlover

I am really apalled by Marriott using as part of its defense that her career has not been hurt materially by this. I have lifetime status with both Marriott (and Starwood, relevant given the acquisition), and I feel so repulsed by this defense that it makes me want to take my business elsewhere. It's truly disgusting.

scubadu

There are countless public articles, tv coverage, radio coverage, etc. available regarding the emotional and financial claims (both are in play). I'm not your personal google.

Regards

Troopers

I'm also surprised by Nashville Marriott defense...I think it will backfire.

Although Marriott Int'l is not a defendant, the public does not distinguish between the Nashville Marriott and Marriott Int'l. Marriott Int'l getting a big black eye...this is BAD public relations.

Troopers

I have not found ONE article that states Andrew's claim is loss in career potential or financial earning. However, I have many HUNDREDS of articles that states Andrew's claim is mental and emotional suffering.

Feel free to correct me.

ETA: She initially filed financial loss but she dropped it.

IceTrojan

I'm waiting for the defense to whip out the "she was asking for it" card. That should go over well.

SkiAdcock

Which is what I posted above.

Marriott got itself separated from the lawsuit, but all the media is reporting is Marriott vs Nashville Marriott. Totally sucks for Marriott, but at this point there's nothing they can do.

Nashville Marriott was stoo-pid re: the she did better claim.

But FWIW - what is total crap journalism is that all the outlets are saying Marriott vs. Nashville Marriott.

I'm sorry - you want respect for being a journalist, then get your facts rights. Geesh.*

FWIW - I'm on her side re: the hotel shouldn't have offered up her info. But that doesn't excuse bad reporting.

Cheers.

SanDiego1K

This isn't going to help perception of the Marriott brand either. The article refers to him as a Marriott exec. He's actually an attorney for the hotel ownership group.

scubadu

Well, I can tell this is likely going to become an emotional, almost "OMNI'ish" thread...

But for the record, I don't believe anyone (certainly not me) is making the case that Ms. Andrews didn't suffer serious damages and harm; she absolutely, unquestionably did (everyone read that sentence again while you point your flamethrowers at me). Whether it makes people upset or not, the question that the court of law must answer is "what is the appropriate remuneration for those damages?" Ms. Andrews is asserting it's $75 million. So, I don't think it's insensitive or inappropriate to discuss how that number is arrived at and whether the data actually supports the claims used to arrive at that number. That is exactly the duty that the court and jury are charged with carrying out.

$75 million is an absolutely ludicrous award demand in a case like this. It is outside the norms for tort awards by orders of magnitude. Full stop.

Here is a quote from an article discussing this back in the fall:

"The $75 million in damages also far exceeds the typical award given in torts trials, including in the “worst case” scenario of where someone is the victim of a wrongful death. According to an article published by the North Carolina Law Review in 2010, the average wrongful death award in the United States from April 1998 to April 2008 was $3.4 million for an adult male, $3.0 million for an adult female and $5.2 million for a minor. Andrews’s demand for $75 million is not in the same ballpark as these data points." (emphasis added)

Source: http://www.si.com/more-sports/2015/1...wsuit-peephole

I'm quite confident that Ms. Andrews will win damages in this case (and she should), but I'm a little skeptical that it will be $75 million. I find it a little difficult to envision how any clear headed, logical thinking individual could make the case that what Ms. Andrews experienced was more damaging than "wrongful death." For all those here who seem rather indignant that Marriott Intl, did not "settle" the case, for the purposes of public relations, has anyone considered that with such an outlandish award demand, that might not have been possible?

Has anyone considered the possibility that if Ms. Andrews had not been demanding remuneration far in excess of what is typically awarded for, you know, wrongful freakin' death, that perhaps Marriott might have indeed reached a settlement with her? I don't know the answer to that, but it seems there are an awful lot of folks here that are rather quick to convict Marriott (you know, the Marriott that is not even named in the lawsuit) and have no idea whether they attempted or offered a good faith settlement.

Further down in the article quoted above is the following, which might shed some light for the defenses actions (whether I think it's the smartest approach is a different question all together):

"It may seem unfair to hold Andrews’s professional success against her in a lawsuit, but it is a meaningful limitation on her ability to prove how seriously she has been damaged."

But hey, once something goes to a jury, who knows what will happen...

Regards

SkiAdcock

'

Right or wrong, I don't think this will hurt Marriott brand much (ultimately)*. Yes it's getting a lot of play - online - but not as much on telly.

Do I think the property screwed up? Absolutely! Do I think they need to get sued? Yes. Do I think the entire Marriott chain worldwide should/would be affected by this? No. Do I think the entire Marriott chain worldwide will be affected by this? No.

* FWIW - if I didn't check Marriott News daily to post new openings etc, I literally would have had no idea this court case was still happening. Seriously. (But in fairness I suck on checking news)

Cheers.

Troopers

Like you, I'm skeptical a jury will award $75 million. With that said, a jury has awarded $21.5 million for an injury caused by a sliding door.

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-awards-21...182820736.html

dayone

We're way past "almost." Most of the latest posts have little or nothing to do with the Marriott corporation or brand.

scubadu

That link just takes me to Yahoo's main news page, but I certainly don't doubt you.

I will say in much of my reading on this, I also clearly read that damage awards tend to be higher for physical damages/impairment vs. "emotional suffering" So, even without reading the article you are quoting, I don't doubt the award for a physical injury, but one would expect that to be higher than for emotional suffering.

And of course, the numbers in the article I quoted are averages. Obviously that means there are higher and lower damages awarded, but it does hopefully give people a sense of how off the charts Ms. Andrews demand is, relative to the situation she experienced.

Regards

Update: Was able to read the article, then did some further research. A judge tossed that verdict in January, 2016. Apparently, the plantiff hid emails which should have been produced during discovery.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...deleted_emails
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...e-injury-case/

ohmark

Strange; it took me to the referred-to article.

scubadu

I just tried it again and it worked. I tried it twice previously and it just redirected, but seems to work now.

Regards

fireworksboy

So, the trial is going on this week and Nashville Marriott reps are dining and what happens next is not classy...

A Vanderbilt Marriott ownership representative who testified during Erin Andrews’s lawsuit against the hotel denied claims he played Andrews’s nude video for his friends at a Tuesday dinner, reports WSMV in Nashville.

Neal Peskind was accused of showing the video to friends at a Nashville restaurant on Tuesday. In a statement by Marriott’s defense, Peskind admits the video was shown at the dinner but not by him, and he asked his friends to stop playing the video, which shows Andrews changing in her hotel room.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/0...-video-friends


Just my two cents, but I hope Andrews squeezes this corporation and makes an example out of them. Other should feel free to defend these...people.