Depends on state law. Some states require one defendant to have more than 50% for it to be joint and several against tthat defendant. Here, if the stalker is the over-50%, or if its 50-50, she can't go after the hotel for any more than its share. And without seeing the verdict form, its hard to know how, or if, liability was apportioned.Is there some reason joint and several liability doesn't apply? Seeing a bunch of tweets speculating she can only go after the $26m, that's not how I understand J&S.
It appears to me that the defendants were found severally liable for their respective pieces, not jointly and severally liable. As noted above, it appears that her recovery source will be the hotel and just the hotel.Is there some reason joint and several liability doesn't apply? Seeing a bunch of tweets speculating she can only go after the $26m, that's not how I understand J&S.
Hopefully a TN lawyer will chime in, but I believe Tennesee's done away with joint and several in most civil cases.Is there some reason joint and several liability doesn't apply? Seeing a bunch of tweets speculating she can only go after the $26m, that's not how I understand J&S.
Some background:(a) If multiple defendants are found liable in a civil action governed by comparative fault, a defendant shall only be severally liable for the percentage of damages for which fault is attributed to such defendant by the trier of fact, and no defendant shall be held jointly liable for any damages.
So that leaves, if Tenn has done away with J&S (per Sumner's post) , then hotel owner only on hook for 26M; and same even if Tenn follows "must be over 50% to be J&S"The jury found Barrett to be 51 percent at fault and required him to pay out more than $28 million. West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million.
A computer expert testified that it was 17 million and that would be a conservative figure.That's an understatement. How many times has that video been viewed now? How many people have now seen her naked? A couple of hundred thousand? A couple million? A Marriott exec just got caught looking at the video with a couple of other guys at a restaurant during the trial, laughing it up the whole way. How much humiliation should she have to endure before fighting back and doing something about it?
Better her than OJGood for her, hope she gets most if not all of the money from the hotel.
Still bothers me though that the jurors were coming up to her for autographs. Just does not feel right.
This isn't even revenge porn, though. She doesn't have even the tiniest sliver of responsibility for having consented to appear in nude videos for an ex-boyfriend or the copyright issues associated with that sort of scenario.$28M is the number she'll work with it. Lawyers will get a substantial part of that too. She gets paid heavily regardless and all things considered, good for her. However it changes nothing about "the video" still being on the internet. That's the whole legal thing she should be focused on. This "revenge porn" thing is horrible. Maybe she can devote some of her energy and finances as a celebrity to helping change laws. Something good could come out of all of this.
What would her survivors have made in a wrongful death suit involving Erin Andrews?
What would her survivors have made in a wrongful death suit involving Erin Andrews?
Yes, it makes you a bad man. And an unmitigated asshole.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
You keep mistaking the facts.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
Good article, but jeez the comments are just horrendous.
First rule of the internet: never read the comments.Good article, but jeez the comments are just horrendous.
You've got a much larger body of work across various forums that proves it.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
I think the major problem -- aside from misidentifying the defendant -- is "frivolous." If you really think that suing the operator of the hotel that, at least in one view of the evidence (the one accepted by a jury that actually *heard* all the evidence), negligently allowed a stalker to stalk her is "frivolous," then yes, you might be a bad man.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
One thing I think you're missing, that I haven't seen mentioned but probably was, is that this ignorance of procedure and privacy by the hotel could have potentially ended with a much worse out come (as bad as the outcome already was). His intentions could have been far more sinister than attempting to video tape her naked and publish it online. If she ended up physically or sexually assaulted; abducted; or even murdered by a deranged fan that got her hotel room in this manner, would that have met your bar for a lawsuit? Part of the number being so high is making sure this hotel - and every other one - doesn't let this happen again.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
Not to go any further down this macabre path, but based on what joe dokes posted upthread, the jury's award likely would have been less if it were a wrongful death lawsuit.One thing I think you're missing, that I haven't seen mentioned but probably was, is that this ignorance of procedure and privacy by the hotel could have potentially ended with a much worse out come (as bad as the outcome already was). His intentions could have been far more sinister than attempting to video tape her naked and publish it online. If she ended up physically or sexually assaulted; abducted; or even murdered by a deranged fan that got her hotel room in this manner, would that have met your bar for a lawsuit? Part of the number being so high is making sure this hotel - and every other one - doesn't let this happen again.
True on the compensatory side, not on punitives, though.Not to go any further down this macabre path, but based on what joe dokes posted upthread, the jury's award likely would have been less if it were a wrongful death lawsuit.
I can only assume that frivolous has a very different meaning to you than the rest of the english speaking world. To think otherwise would cause me to lose further hope that people so lacking in empathy actually exist.Heaven forbid I think her suit against Marriott is frivolous. That makes me a bad man.
Thanks, as someone outside the legal profession, it's interesting to think about the fact that we have a basic understanding of the value of a human life, but we don't have the same guidelines for the price for invasion of privacy and public humiliation. I think you could argue that $1 per view is an order of magnitude too large or too small of an award.True on the compensatory side, not on punitives, though.
Probably time to give this matter a reast and hope she finds some peace.
Yeah ... That's a shame.He can't hear you no more....
Without getting too deep in the weeds, if someone dies slowly and painfully, their estate can recover for pain and suffering, which is unthethered from any fixed point like lost wages would be.Thanks, as someone outside the legal profession, it's interesting to think about the fact that we have a basic understanding of the value of a human life, but we don't have the same guidelines for the price for invasion of privacy and public humiliation. I think you could argue that $1 per view is an order of magnitude too large or too small of an award.
I smell sitcom!. I'm not sure what the relationship typically is between revenue and asset value in the hotel industry, but if those numbers are remotely correct and the verdict holds up on appeal, I'm guessing Erin Andrews is the de facto owner of a hotel in Nashville.
I guess it was merely good taste that got them to release this after the conclusion of the trial? Or maybe some legal bounds? I had been wondering why Marriott hadn't been issuing PR for the last week since almost every tweet, share, trend, etc. that I have seen on any media has said that Andrews case was against Marriott and that "Marriott's" defense was the business about her gaining fame from the incident. I even had a couple of feminist types I know declare they will never stay at a Marriott again.Here's Marriott's press release. (They were dismissed from the case prior to trial.)
http://news.marriott.com/2016/03/the-facts-about-marriott-international-and-erin-andrews-trial.html
If by "she" you mean inlcuding the lawyers and before taxes......that seems like a low number for insurance coverage, and a bit on the high side for their deductible/self-insured amount. I would guess that between primary and excess/umbrella there is at least $10M in liability insurance coverage, and that the owners' policy-based responsibility is probably closer to $1M. (of course, if the insurance falls short, the owners will have to reach into their own pockets). If she collects 100% of the insurance and causes some personal pain to the owners, I doubt she will force them to cash out the property. But it would be within her rights to do so (assuming one of our insurance estimates is correct).How much do you figure she'll actually collect? I'm going with $7.5MM -- $5MM from insurance coverage and $2.5MM from the owners of the hotel. However, it could be a lot less if the insurance coverage is, say, $1MM and the hotel is under water.
Too late!I smell sitcom!
Got it. And that sounds about right.The $2.5MM wasn't meant as simply the deductible. Assuming that she exhausts the insurance, she will still try to get something out of the owners, who might be willing to borrow more against the property in order to avoid having to sell it -- or who may have to sell it in a bankruptcy case in order to satisfy / extinguish the judgment.
That revenue number seems awfully low to me. I have worked in restaurants that make $5 million a year. A hotel with a couple hundred rooms, a restaurant and banquet facilities should have revenue 4 times that.Here's Marriott's press release. (They were dismissed from the case prior to trial.)
http://news.marriott.com/2016/03/the-facts-about-marriott-international-and-erin-andrews-trial.html
This website says that West End Hotel Partners has 99 employees and $5.1 million in annual revenue. I'm not sure what the relationship typically is between revenue and asset value in the hotel industry, but if those numbers are remotely correct and the verdict holds up on appeal, I'm guessing Erin Andrews is the de facto owner of a hotel in Nashville.
http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Nashville-marriott-at-vanderbi-615-321-1300
I don't think you should refer to Peter King that way.I even had a couple of feminist types I know declare they will never stay at a Marriott again.
Hat's off for excellent research. I've yet to see any reported stories covering this angle beyond "it will be hard to collect, appeals, lawyer fees, taxes, blah, blah, blah...."I found the Marriott franchise agreement. It requires $1M of general liability plus an umbrella that varies with the height of the building. For 5 stories or less, the umbrella is $14MM. It appears that the hotel in question is about 12 stories, in which case the umbrella is $49MM. So I guess Erin will collect rather nicely.
Take the rest of the afternoon off.Deductibles or retentions not to exceed $25,000 without the prior written consent of franchisor.
The press release was a couple weeks old, but I found it yesterday and saw it hadn't been posted here. Sorry, I should have been more clear.I guess it was merely good taste that got them to release this after the conclusion of the trial? Or maybe some legal bounds? I had been wondering why Marriott hadn't been issuing PR for the last week since almost every tweet, share, trend, etc. that I have seen on any media has said that Andrews case was against Marriott and that "Marriott's" defense was the business about her gaining fame from the incident. I even had a couple of feminist types I know declare they will never stay at a Marriott again.
Great find.I found the Marriott franchise agreement. It requires $1M of general liability plus an umbrella that varies with the height of the building. For 5 stories or less, the umbrella is $14MM. It appears that the hotel in question is about 12 stories, in which case the umbrella is $49MM. So I guess Erin will collect rather nicely.