I think this kinda creates a moral dilemma. Many of those women perhaps all of them don't know. On the one hand you want this guy to pay for those crimes but on the other hand by telling those women you would be potentially damaging their sense of well being immensely.
Do you wait for them to come forward on their own or do you find them and tell them that there are naked videos of them on the internet that you will never be able to remove? Would you want to know, or would it be better to remain ignorant?
This is what's frustrating. I explained it on like page three. SKA explained it a little later on.
In many cases, like the one against McDonald's involving the coffee, there are two parts to the award.
First are compensatory damages, which are intended to compensate the victim for the actual losses they suffered, like medical bills, damaged property, stuff like that. It's stuff you can put a number on and prove with receipts and such.*
Then there are punitive damages, which are intended to punish the perpetrator. It;s money the person responsible is made to pay in order to punish them. This money has to go somewhere and in our system it goes to the victim. The victim doesn't necessarily deserve the money, but there isn't anyone who deserves it more than they do. But the primary purpose for making the liable party pay it is to punish them and to prevent them and others in their position from allowing the same thing to happen again.
With the McDonald's coffee thing, there were over 700 cases where McDonald's coffee seriously injured people (the temp McDonald's kept their coffee at, well above normal, meant that it was not a food item, it was a hazardous material). McDonald's knew about these instances but decided that it was worth it to keep hurting people, just a cost of doing business. The woman who spilled the coffee nearly died. She suffered severe third degree burns on her thighs, pelvis and groin that required emergency skin grafts. The huge settlement was not to pay her medical bills or to be nice because she got hurt, it was intended to be large enough to make McDonald's change their practices so that people no longer got hurt. And it worked.
*
It does also include things like pain and suffering, which you can't really show a receipt for, but you do need to substantiate the claim somehow
My opinion changed because I found out two things.
1) The award given DID NOT include punitive damages.
2) The hotel DID NOT voluntarily give out Andrew's room number.
I made a point over and over and over in regard to punitive damages. No one refuted my incorrect argument. I had to go find details that supported what other people were saying. I don't think any of you that don't like the ruling had any idea at all that there were no punitive damages. You didn't care about that fact. You don't care about the technical details of this case. I do and I was making an (incorrect) argument based on what I thought the technical details were. When I discovered my own mistake it changed my opinion. How is that possible? Because I'm not emotionally locked into what I want the answer to this question to be.
It has been said many times by me and others in this thread that the hotel gave the stalker Andrews room number. It looks like they did not. Any of you on the other side could have corrected those statements, but you didn't because I don't think you knew or cared one way or another.
The facts CAN change my opinion. Can they change yours?
Props (and rep) to you for being man enough to change your opinion. I think you can probably understand why those particular facts did not change mine. But like you, I have changed my mind many times on many issues.
I don't have access to Tennessee's e-filing docket (I'm not licensed there) but I'd be astonished if none of the damages were punitive. Truly and honestly shocked.
First: Punitive Damages are allowed under Tennessee tort law.
"In Tennessee, therefore, a court may henceforth award punitive damages only if it finds a defendant has acted either (1) intentionally, (2) fraudulently, (3) maliciously, or (4) recklessly." Hodges v. S.C. Toof and Company[//i], 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992)
Paragraph 15 is where this started. Notably, they allege that the stalker was able to get this information and be booked next to Andrews at multiple hotels, which certainly punches a hole in the "this is just one employee" theory. Apparently at his sentencing he acknowledged that he did this at multiple hotels in Milwaukee and Ohio.
There it indicates that he got the number by simply asking to be connected to Andrews (without knowing the number) and the operator put him right through, displaying the room number on the in-house phone. That doesn't require any special skill. It's also not as egregious as simply telling him the number, but it certainly means that the hotel is the one who provided him with the information by putting him through and showing him the number on their devices.
This is what's frustrating. I explained it on like page three. SKA explained it a little later on.
In many cases, like the one against McDonald's involving the coffee, there are two parts to the award.
First are compensatory damages, which are intended to compensate the victim for the actual losses they suffered, like medical bills, damaged property, stuff like that. It's stuff you can put a number on and prove with receipts and such.*
Then there are punitive damages, which are intended to punish the perpetrator. It;s money the person responsible is made to pay in order to punish them. This money has to go somewhere and in our system it goes to the victim. The victim doesn't necessarily deserve the money, but there isn't anyone who deserves it more than they do. But the primary purpose for making the liable party pay it is to punish them and to prevent them and others in their position from allowing the same thing to happen again.
With the McDonald's coffee thing, there were over 700 cases where McDonald's coffee seriously injured people (the temp McDonald's kept their coffee at, well above normal, meant that it was not a food item, it was a hazardous material). McDonald's knew about these instances but decided that it was worth it to keep hurting people, just a cost of doing business. The woman who spilled the coffee nearly died. She suffered severe third degree burns on her thighs, pelvis and groin that required emergency skin grafts. The huge settlement was not to pay her medical bills or to be nice because she got hurt, it was intended to be large enough to make McDonald's change their practices so that people no longer got hurt. And it worked.
*
It does also include things like pain and suffering, which you can't really show a receipt for, but you do need to substantiate the claim somehow
In that case my opinion hasn't changed.
I thought that 55 million was too much whether punitive or compensatory. Still do.
I also still think that the best way to deter this type of thing is to throw the book at the dude who made the video rather than take money from some hotel owner who had nothing to do with the crime.
My opinion is still the same after these new facts you presented
In that case my opinion hasn't changed.
I thought that 55 million was too much whether punitive or compensatory. Still do.
I also still think that the best way to deter this type of thing is to throw the book at the dude who made the video rather than take money from some hotel owner who had nothing to do with the crime.
My opinion is still the same after these new facts you presented
There is no irony there. Both ideas are based in the concept of personal sovereignty. That people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and that it is a gross violation to force your gaze or actions upon their bodies.
Now, it's probably more ironic to argue that we should be super conservative about sex but also that someone just looked at her and that's no big deal.
I agree that the second scenario you laid out would be even more ironic. In my opinion, though, the anxiety so many people obviously have over their nude body being visible to others is rooted in the same prudish mindset that purports we should not be teaching sex education in schools. Personally I believe that Andrews privacy was violated in this instance, but I don't think the hotel (even given what prior to Game's most recent posts we believed the facts of this case to be) bears any more than a very minor responsibility. I think the award was excessive by a factor of at least 200.
I can't find anything that says that punitive damages are not part of the award, and I would be surprised if they are not part of it. The $55 million was not awarded solely against the hotel. 51% of the award was to the voyeur and 49% to the hotel. She of course won't see much money from him, and the hotel will likely appeal.
He spent 2.5 years in jail, which is fair enough. She was smart to file the civil lawsuit as well so that the hotel shares in the responsibility.
As far as the $ number is concerned, couldn't the potential damage to her career warrant a greater award? She's a sports caster for a popular sports news station, Fox Sports. How this event could effect her career, one that is not easy to obtain, and her future earning potential could have played a part in the $ amount. Eh?
As far as the $ number is concerned, couldn't the potential damage to her career warrant a greater award? She's a sports caster for a popular sports news station, Fox Sports. How this event could effect her career, one that is not easy to obtain, and her future earning potential could have played a part in the $ amount. Eh?
This is likely the case. I have some family who have been disabled to the point where they can no longer work due to a motor vehicle accident, and they were awarded a settlement in the amount of the wages they were projected to earn until retirement.
It could be argued that Andrews missed out on a lot if money, potentially 55 million due to the video being released.
Of course, the defendants lawyer argued that she had benefitted from the video coming out. While that may be the case, to use it in an argument likely cost them a lot if money.
I don't know Erin Andrews so I don't really know what she went through.
Does she feel violated and ruined? Will it take years of therapy for her to recover?
Was she a little upset and now feels like everything is settled and the judgment was fair and she is over it now with more money than before?
Is she thinking that this incident is the best thing that ever happened to her?
I have no idea so I can only discuss how someone like me would feel about it. Or look at the different ways someone could feel about it.
Ok, fair enough. Can we agree, however, that how you think (in the abstract) you might feel if this happened to you hypothetically, does not necessarily set the standard for how someone should actually feel when it actually happens to her?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
