55 Million for Having Your Vajayjay filmed Through a Motel Room Peep Hole

[Paa Langfart]

Guys guys, cant we all just get along ?

[R0CKnR0LLA]

I didn't follow the case, can someone explain to me why the hotel companies are liable here? Did they do anything irresponsible that would allow this to happen? Seems weird to punish them just because it happened to take place on their property.

[Goondal]

1 hour ago, R0CKnR0LLA said:

I didn't follow the case, can someone explain to me why the hotel companies are liable here? Did they do anything irresponsible that would allow this to happen? Seems weird to punish them just because it happened to take place on their property.

I guess he actually called them and asked to book the room right next to her and they just said "hey, that sounds okay to me."

[Doyle]

Next Time on As The World Turns :

Bwood and Panda officially break up. 

[cookinbrak]

2 hours ago, Goondal said:

I guess he actually called them and asked to book the room right next to her and they just said "hey, that sounds okay to me."

We used to have a guy that always wanted the same room- a smoking double on the 2nd floor, pool side. Only he didn't smoke and was by himself. But little kids swim in the shallow end...

Once that room became unavailable, he stopped coming back.

That guy could have easily followed her to her room and then asked for something in that area, without saying a specific name or number. "Second floor near the elevators" is both specific and vague.

The real question is how he reversed the peephole, that would have to be done from inside the room.

[Goondal]

11 hours ago, cookinbrak said:

We used to have a guy that always wanted the same room- a smoking double on the 2nd floor, pool side. Only he didn't smoke and was by himself. But little kids swim in the shallow end...

Once that room became unavailable, he stopped coming back.

That guy could have easily followed her to her room and then asked for something in that area, without saying a specific name or number. "Second floor near the elevators" is both specific and vague.

The real question is how he reversed the peephole, that would have to be done from inside the room.

If he had done that then there would have been nothing the hotel could do.  He actually asked for a room next to her

[Darth Biscuit]

I don't get in the lounge much lately and was wondering if there was a thread on this...

 

Erin Andrews is absolutely a victim, twice if you count the fact that she'll see very little of this judgement.  She absolutely has the right to be buck ass naked in a hotel room with an expectation of privacy, as does anyone else.

This guy rightfully went to jail over it and he absolutely should have to pay her for any emotional suffering a jury believes she went thru... what I don't get is the argument that the hotel is 49% at fault in the judgement.  Sure, they should never have allowed him to specifically request to be put into a room beside her... or at the very least should have notified her of this.  But does that make them nearly equally at fault as the scum bag that filmed her?  I can't see how it does.

The amount of the judgment is silly also... people have been murdered/raped/molested/attacked and not gotten this much money.  As much as invasion of her privacy this was, I don't think you can equate it to any of those things...

[Mr. Scot]

23 minutes ago, Darth Biscuit said:

I don't get in the lounge much lately and was wondering if there was a thread on this...

Erin Andrews is absolutely a victim, twice if you count the fact that she'll see very little of this judgement.  She absolutely has the right to be buck ass naked in a hotel room with an expectation of privacy, as does anyone else.

This guy rightfully went to jail over it and he absolutely should have to pay her for any emotional suffering a jury believes she went thru... what I don't get is the argument that the hotel is 49% at fault in the judgement.  Sure, they should never have allowed him to specifically request to be put into a room beside her... or at the very least should have notified her of this.  But does that make them nearly equally at fault as the scum bag that filmed her?  I can't see how it does.

The amount of the judgment is silly also... people have been murdered/raped/molested/attacked and not gotten this much money.  As much as invasion of her privacy this was, I don't think you can equate it to any of those things...

Reminds me...Once worked for a local cable office where this one guy would call to order pornos on pay-per-view (he could have ordered from the cable box) and always insisted on speaking to a female rep.  If he got a male rep he'd hang up and call back.

Was pretty obvious he was a creeper.  Some reps complained but there wasn't really much that could be done about it.

[cookinbrak]

5 hours ago, Darth Biscuit said:

I don't get in the lounge much lately and was wondering if there was a thread on this...

 

Erin Andrews is absolutely a victim, twice if you count the fact that she'll see very little of this judgement.  She absolutely has the right to be buck ass naked in a hotel room with an expectation of privacy, as does anyone else.

This guy rightfully went to jail over it and he absolutely should have to pay her for any emotional suffering a jury believes she went thru... what I don't get is the argument that the hotel is 49% at fault in the judgement.  Sure, they should never have allowed him to specifically request to be put into a room beside her... or at the very least should have notified her of this.  But does that make them nearly equally at fault as the scum bag that filmed her?  I can't see how it does.

The amount of the judgment is silly also... people have been murdered/raped/molested/attacked and not gotten this much money.  As much as invasion of her privacy this was, I don't think you can equate it to any of those things...

If a person asks for a specific room number, and it's available, there's no reason not to give it to them. If a person asks to be put beside a certain person, they are told divulging room numbers is against hotel policy. If this was what happened, Marriot would have said that the desk clerk violated policy and they were the ones to sue. Not to mention that he still would have to have access to her room to reverse the peephole.

 

[Darth Biscuit]

20 hours ago, cookinbrak said:

If a person asks for a specific room number, and it's available, there's no reason not to give it to them. If a person asks to be put beside a certain person, they are told divulging room numbers is against hotel policy. If this was what happened, Marriot would have said that the desk clerk violated policy and they were the ones to sue. Not to mention that he still would have to have access to her room to reverse the peephole.

 

I agree for the most part.  It's my understanding that he asked specifically for her by name then askedto be put beside her.  That should have set off some arm bells for hotel staff but to say they're nearly as responsible for what the guy did as him is ridiculous to me.  As for the security aspect of it, I don't think a reasonable person would say that a hotel should have a constant presence in the halls to monitor for stuff like this.  Hotel expenses would be out of sight if they had enough employees for that kind of security. 

[cookinbrak]

If heasked for a room beside hers and was given it, then the desk clerk is responsible for violating Marriot policy. And they would have said that in court. I think the guy followed her, saw what room she had, and asked for a room in that area or even a specific room without saying a name. In which case the hotel isn't liable.

[Jangler]

He did ask for a room specifically next to her, used her name.

[cookinbrak]

Then the employee who gave them that room violated Marriot policy and is responsible. And the hotel would have said that in court.