Erin Andrews files $10M suit over nude video

[NB2K]

This took longer than I thought.

ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has filed a $10 million lawsuit in connection with a videotape shot through a peephole that showed her nude in her Nashville hotel room.
In the lawsuit, Andrews charges that Barrett phoned the hotel and was told which room Andrews was staying in. He then rented the room next to hers, altered the peephole on the door to her room and videotaped her. He subsequently posted the video on the Internet.

Barrett was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in federal prison.

The lawsuit says the incident "has caused and continues to cause her great emotional distress and embarrassment."

A Marriott spokesman told the Tennessean that the company has changed its policies to upgrade guest privacy in the wake of the incident.

Erin Andrews files $10M suit over nude video *| ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/sports/erin-andrews-files-10m-1253449.html)

[C5SilverBullet]

He could have at least bought an HD camera.

[Yerf Dog]

Link to vid? :D

[Stangkiller]

There is nothing to be embarrassed about that video...except that it wasn't HD.

[kingpin]

She gots a nize poopers!

[Bucwheat]

Never seen the vid so how can she sue?

[C5SilverBullet]

I may have a copy of it on my laptop.

[96LT4]

The video sucked....wonder if she does. :)

[themonk]

She's an idiot.

[Datawiz]

Very easy to find with google. ;)

Pretty shitty video. She looks good, however.

[NB2K]

She's an idiot.

Why?

[NB2K]

Very easy to find with google. ;)

Pretty shitty video. She looks good, however.

Which is why she will win.

[themonk]

I forgot all about this.

Thanks for reminding me Erin. :rolleyes:

:withstupid:

Why?

Because she's wasting taxpayer's money taking up the court's for something that no body remembers or even gives a crap about and how exactly did this effect her ability to earn an income?

[Stangkiller]

:withstupid:



Because she's wasting taxpayer's money taking up the court's for something that no body remembers or even gives a crap about and how exactly did this effect her ability to earn an income?

:bs: I remember it every time I see her on TV.

For the Hotel to sell her out like that, they definitely owe her some serious coin. What's stupid is the hotel not just writing her a blank check.

[RedLS1GTO]

Because she's wasting taxpayer's money taking up the court's for something that no body remembers or even gives a crap about and how exactly did this effect her ability to earn an income?

There is a near infinite list of frivolous lawsuits out there.

A hotel giving out the information of a celebrity and renting the room to a person specifically requesting it which leads to videos like this being posted online is not one of them IMO.

I don't know about the dollar amount, but the lawsuit against the hotel in general seems pretty warranted to me.

[RedLS1GTO]

:bs: I remember it every time I see her on TV.

Ditto.

Not to mention, of all of the celebrity bullsh*t scandals out there, I think she has handled this one pretty well from start to finish.

[DAB]

a former neighbor was a GM at a hotel, and i've stayed at plenty of hotels in my travels. always thought it was standard policy to not pass out room numbers of guests. perhaps connect phone calls to rooms, but not tell peeps who is staying where.

should have just settled with Marriott, dude has no coin, and never will.

[RedLS1GTO]

should have just settled with Marriott...

The way I read it, Marriott (not the broke dude) is who she was going after for giving out the info.

[Stangkiller]

a former neighbor was a GM at a hotel, and i've stayed at plenty of hotels in my travels. always thought it was standard policy to not pass out room numbers of guests. perhaps connect phone calls to rooms, but not tell peeps who is staying where.

should have just settled with Marriott, dude has no coin, and never will.

Andrews is seeking $6 million from the West End Marriott Hotel and $4 million from Michael Barrett, the man who shot the 2008 video, the Tennessean newspaper of Nashville reported.
Looks like she is going after Marriott still, as well as the hero..err ahole who took the video.

[themonk]

There is a near infinite list of frivolous lawsuits out there.

A hotel giving out the information of a celebrity and renting the room to a person specifically requesting it which leads to videos like this being posted online is not one of them IMO.

I don't know about the dollar amount, but the lawsuit against the hotel in general seems pretty warranted to me.

If anything it boosted her ratings. Slipping on ice in front of McDonalds and breaking your back rendering you useless, that's a lawsuit, her ability to work has not diminished in the least. That's the problem with people today, always trying to make a fast buck, WTF did she come up with 10 million, was that he potential lost income, I don't f'kn think so, I'll tell you where, her lawyer, that's where.

[Stangkiller]

If anything it boosted her ratings. Slipping on ice in front of McDonalds and breaking your back rendering you useless, that's a lawsuit, her ability to work has not diminished in the least. That's the problem with people today, always trying to make a fast buck, WTF did she come up with 10 million, was that he potential lost income, I don't f'kn think so, I'll tell you where, her lawyer, that's where.

:shrug: Who cares where she came up with the $$ amount, personally I think it should be for a whole lot more money. Marriott sold her out on this one, she had a reasonable expectation to privacy inside her hotel room, and Marriott through it's direct actions allowed a nude video to be taken of her.

Marriott should absolutely pay..I'd be willing to bed Marriott will try to settle this out of court, but filing the suit was necessary just to get the ball rolling.

[RedLS1GTO]

Slipping on ice in front of McDonalds and breaking your back rendering you useless, that's a lawsuit...

So let me get this straight...

You being a dumbass and not being able to walk means you should sue somebody but a hotel negligently giving out personal information that leads to this ISN'T a reason?

:skep:


Being a dumbass, hurting YOURSELF (as in slipping on ice outside when it is below freezing), and expecting to get paid for it is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit.

[xXBUDXx]

I wonder if I've been filmed at the Marriott? :leaving:

[Kerrmudgeon]

I watched it for the full 4 minutes. She's in good shape, nothing to be embarrassed about, mother nature it all her glory. Bit of a wide glide....
I like that!:seasix:

[themonk]

So let me get this straight...

You being a dumbass and not being able to walk means you should sue somebody but a hotel giving out personal information that leads to this ISN'T a reason?

:skep:


Being a dumbass, hurting YOURSELF (as in slipping on ice outside when it is below freezing), and expecting to get paid for it is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit.

WTF, are you nuts man. Slipping and falling on ice in front of a door at McDicks doesn't make you stupid, it makes for negligence of the staff of that crap hole. It's not like it's 95 degrees out and you twist your ankle walking through a dry parking lot, you slipped on ice that should've been cleared and becoming paralyzed because of the ice is definitely not your fault.

[DAB]

I wonder if I've been filmed at the Marriott? :leaving:

haven't been able to sell a single copy yet....care to purchase one?:slap:

[RedLS1GTO]

WTF, are you nuts man. Slipping and falling on ice in front of a door at McDicks doesn't make you stupid, it makes for negligence of the staff of that crap hole. It's not like it's 95 degrees out and you twist your ankle walking through a dry parking lot, you slipped on ice that should've been cleared and becoming paralyzed because of the ice is definitely not your fault.

If you say so.

[Stangkiller]

WTF, are you nuts man. Slipping and falling on ice in front of a door at McDicks doesn't make you stupid, it makes for negligence of the staff of that crap hole. It's not like it's 95 degrees out and you twist your ankle walking through a dry parking lot, you slipped on ice that should've been cleared and becoming paralyzed because of the ice is definitely not your fault.

I'm not from an icy area...but typically when it's below freezing out, I kind of expect to see ice. Not sure why it's a restaurants responsibility for me to wear the right type of flip flops <all weather i suppose>.

The Coffee was a valid lawsuit..but slipping on ice, that wasn't put there by an employee...please.

[lspencer534]

Very easy to find with google. ;)

Pretty shitty video. She looks good, however.

Just be careful. When the video was on the net, 9 out of 10 links had a virus. Or go to hamster.com and search for her name.

[Kerrmudgeon]

Yahoo pics has them also, pretty fuzzy though. After the law suit is over, she might as well go for it with Playboy now. Do it right, and they are true photographic artists, they made that lard arse Kim Kard-ASS-ian look good!:boobies:

Still curious how they're going to make that drug etched Li-Lo look good this month.:ack:

[xXBUDXx]

haven't been able to sell a single copy yet....care to purchase one?:slap:

Might as well. I know a few peeps that need a copy for Christmas. They are on the naughty list.

[Datawiz]

Yahoo pics has them also, pretty fuzzy though. After the law suit is over, she might as well go for it with Playboy now. Do it right, and they are true photographic artists, they made that lard arse Kim Kard-ASS-ian look good!:boobies:

Was about to be my next post. Christ, if you're already nakkid all over the internet, might as well get paid to have it done tastefully. :yesnod:

[island14]

If she had not of started the lawsuit, no one would have made this thread, and I never would have heard about her!


So now that she has this new found publicity... (probably planned) :bilmem:

Guess its time to google her?

[lspencer534]

I have mixed feelings about her lawsuit. Sure, her expectation of privacy was grossly breached by the hotel, and they should pay her something, just to remind other hotels to keep guest info confidential. I don't know, however, if one should be handsomely rewarded by a video of her scratching her ass and then smelling her fingers.

[RedLS1GTO]

Guess its time to google her?


Holy crap. I had no idea that males actually existed who didn't know who Erin Andrews was. :willy:

[boracayjohnny]

If she had not of started the lawsuit, no one would have made this thread, and I never would have heard about her!


So now that she has this new found publicity... (probably planned) :bilmem:

Guess its time to google her?

No worries. You're not missing anything. :sleep:

[NB2K]

I have mixed feelings about her lawsuit. Sure, her expectation of privacy was grossly breached by the hotel, and they should pay her something, just to remind other hotels to keep guest info confidential. I don't know, however, if one should be handsomely rewarded by a video of her scratching her ass and then smelling her fingers.

She was clearly harmed by the video; loss of potential endorsements (Nike-we can't use her, she was naked on the 'net), damage to professional credibility, not to mention the downright embarrassment.

I think the amount is somewhat conservative, to be honest.

Here's the kicker:
What if it's your daughter?

[island14]

Holy crap. I had no idea that males actually existed who didn't know who Erin Andrews was. :willy:



I have been kinda out of the loop for awhile :bilmem:

[island14]

Here's the kicker:
What if it's your daughter?

Then that would be legal grounds for premeditated murder :toetap:

[Rotorhead]

If anything it boosted her ratings. Slipping on ice in front of McDonalds and breaking your back rendering you useless, that's a lawsuit, her ability to work has not diminished in the least. That's the problem with people today, always trying to make a fast buck, WTF did she come up with 10 million, was that he potential lost income, I don't f'kn think so, I'll tell you where, her lawyer, that's where.

Dude, it also violated her privacy. Her potential income is in danger. I do not feel this is a frivolous law suit at all. The gal has her right to privacy.

[kingpin]

I had to kick her out of bed ever since the video came out.
I can't be seen with a chick who everyone else has seen.

[lspencer534]

Dude, it also violated her privacy. Her potential income is in danger. I do not feel this is a frivolous law suit at all. The gal has her right to privacy.

I'm glad that most peeps regard this as a serious matter and not just another frivolous lawsuit. Sure, her lawyers will get paid (probably handsomely), but sometimes a message needs to be sent to other hotels that this kind of conduct isn't tolerated. I'm thankful to live in a Country where someone can sue for the wrongs committed against them.

[Rotorhead]

If anything it boosted her ratings. Slipping on ice in front of McDonalds and breaking your back rendering you useless, that's a lawsuit, her ability to work has not diminished in the least. That's the problem with people today, always trying to make a fast buck, WTF did she come up with 10 million, was that he potential lost income, I don't f'kn think so, I'll tell you where, her lawyer, that's where.

Now you know where my anger towards Canadians come from? It's comments like this where you have no common decency towards women or other people in general, manners or even self respect. Hell maybe you'd like to see her get gang raped watching a hidden cam in her house. You're a sick mofo, and Kingpin is not too many steps behind you. You (no use of sir here, I can't call a person sir I have 0 respect for) should learn to respect honest hard working people and not accepting a violation of her privacy because she is an amazing woman to satisfy your sick fantasies. I hope her kids do not see the tape.

[Rotorhead]

Then that would be legal grounds for premeditated murder :toetap:

:iagree:

[themonk]

I'm not from an icy area...but typically when it's below freezing out, I kind of expect to see ice. Not sure why it's a restaurants responsibility for me to wear the right type of flip flops <all weather i suppose>.

The Coffee was a valid lawsuit..but slipping on ice, that wasn't put there by an employee...please.

If you say so.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_719.pdf

Chapter 719
SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL
§ 719-1. Definitions.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of
snow and ice from sidewalks.
§ 719-3. Removal from sidewalks by
city; recovery of costs.
§ 719-4. Removal from structures.
§ 719-5. Moving snow onto streets.
§ 719-6. Offences.
§ 719-7. Use of the word “highway.”
§ 719-8. Transition
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 1999-7-29 by By-law No.
530-1999. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Traffic and parking — See Ch. 950.
§ 719-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
BUILDING — Includes the land and premises appurtenant to the building.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of snow and ice from sidewalks.
A. Every owner or occupant of any building must, within 12 hours after any fall of
snow, rain or hail has ceased, clear away and completely remove snow and ice from
any sidewalk on any highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building.
B. After the removal of snow and ice, if any portion of the sidewalk becomes slippery
from any cause, the owner or occupant must immediately and as often as necessary
apply to the sidewalk ashes, sand, salt or some other suitable material so as to completely cover the slippery surface.
C. Subsection A does not apply to an owner or an occupant of a building where, pursuant to City of Toronto policy, the City of Toronto has undertaken the responsibility
to clear away and completely remove snow and ice from the sidewalk on the highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building at that location. [Added
1999-11-25 by By-law No. 776-1999]

That by-law probably exists for every business out there in cities that receive snow.

holy f'k, did I really have to post this. :crazy:

[Stangkiller]

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_719.pdf

Chapter 719
SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL
§ 719-1. Definitions.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of
snow and ice from sidewalks.
§ 719-3. Removal from sidewalks by
city; recovery of costs.
§ 719-4. Removal from structures.
§ 719-5. Moving snow onto streets.
§ 719-6. Offences.
§ 719-7. Use of the word “highway.”
§ 719-8. Transition
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 1999-7-29 by By-law No.
530-1999. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Traffic and parking — See Ch. 950.
§ 719-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
BUILDING — Includes the land and premises appurtenant to the building.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of snow and ice from sidewalks.
A. Every owner or occupant of any building must, within 12 hours after any fall of
snow, rain or hail has ceased, clear away and completely remove snow and ice from
any sidewalk on any highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building.
B. After the removal of snow and ice, if any portion of the sidewalk becomes slippery
from any cause, the owner or occupant must immediately and as often as necessary
apply to the sidewalk ashes, sand, salt or some other suitable material so as to completely cover the slippery surface.
C. Subsection A does not apply to an owner or an occupant of a building where, pursuant to City of Toronto policy, the City of Toronto has undertaken the responsibility
to clear away and completely remove snow and ice from the sidewalk on the highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building at that location. [Added
1999-11-25 by By-law No. 776-1999]

That by-law probably exists for every business out there in cities that receive snow.

holy f'k, did I really have to post this. :crazy:
It'd still be a frivolous lawsuit.

[kingpin]

Now you know where my anger towards Canadians come from? It's comments like this where you have no common decency towards women or other people in general, manners or even self respect. Hell maybe you'd like to see her get gang raped watching a hidden cam in her house. You're a sick mofo, and Kingpin is not too many steps behind you. You (no use of sir here, I can't call a person sir I have 0 respect for) should learn to respect honest hard working people and not accepting a violation of her privacy because she is an amazing woman to satisfy your sick fantasies. I hope her kids do not see the tape.

Why you have to try and start shit.

Grow up, and btw you'll be hearing from my lawyer about slandering me in this post. :rolleyes:

[kingpin]

It'd still be a frivolous lawsuit.

Not here man. If there is a driveway, sidewalk or parking lot, it's up to the owner/lessor/renter to make sure the walkways are safe and free of snow or ice within the allotted time.

It's not that difficult if you're not a lazy prick.

:cheers:

[Jay13]

She gots a nize poopers!

"Poopers" - as in plural meaning more than one? If that's the case, I would also sue for $10M to keep that a secret.

A hotel giving out the information of a celebrity and renting the room to a person specifically requesting it which leads to videos like this being posted online is not one of them IMO.

To me, this is the key. If true, hotel employees reduced the odds of peeping the correct room from (i'm guessing for the sake of argument) say, 500:1 to 100%.

I wonder if I've been filmed at the Marriott? :leaving:

Yes. But when room service was asked to deliver a whole cucumber and the door was answered by a guy in a cowboy hat, I'm pretty sure they deleted the footage without watching it. :D

I don't know, however, if one should be handsomely rewarded by a video of her scratching her ass and then smelling her fingers.

Of course not. If you're going to scratch your ass and smell your own fingers, it was a voluntary act and the smell is all you are entitled to from the bargain.

Here's the kicker:
What if it's your daughter?

I can't stand the "what if it's your " argument. Of [I]course I'm going to be biased if it's my daughter. Which is precisely the reason my opinion should not be the measuring stick in such a case.

[vetteman9368]

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_719.pdf

Chapter 719
SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL
§ 719-1. Definitions.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of
snow and ice from sidewalks.
§ 719-3. Removal from sidewalks by
city; recovery of costs.
§ 719-4. Removal from structures.
§ 719-5. Moving snow onto streets.
§ 719-6. Offences.
§ 719-7. Use of the word “highway.”
§ 719-8. Transition
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 1999-7-29 by By-law No.
530-1999. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Traffic and parking — See Ch. 950.
§ 719-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
BUILDING — Includes the land and premises appurtenant to the building.
§ 719-2. Time limit for removal of snow and ice from sidewalks.
A. Every owner or occupant of any building must, within 12 hours after any fall of
snow, rain or hail has ceased, clear away and completely remove snow and ice from
any sidewalk on any highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building.
B. After the removal of snow and ice, if any portion of the sidewalk becomes slippery
from any cause, the owner or occupant must immediately and as often as necessary
apply to the sidewalk ashes, sand, salt or some other suitable material so as to completely cover the slippery surface.
C. Subsection A does not apply to an owner or an occupant of a building where, pursuant to City of Toronto policy, the City of Toronto has undertaken the responsibility
to clear away and completely remove snow and ice from the sidewalk on the highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of the building at that location. [Added
1999-11-25 by By-law No. 776-1999]

That by-law probably exists for every business out there in cities that receive snow.

holy f'k, did I really have to post this. :crazy:

wrong country. No one is talking about your socialist utopia

[Rotorhead]

Why you have to try and start shit.

Grow up, and btw you'll be hearing from my lawyer about slandering me in this post. :rolleyes:

Go ahead. I never said anyhting about lawyers, only higher authority, meaning moderators. You took it it upon yourself to assume lawyers, who are not athorities. Moderators are.

I'm not starting anyhting FTR but justifying why I said what I said. Can you do that?

[NB2K]

I can't stand the "what if it's your " argument. Of [I]course I'm going to be biased if it's my daughter. Which is precisely the reason my opinion should not be the measuring stick in such a case.

What about the rest of it?

Valid claims?

Your on the fringes of the legal system; what's your opinion?:D

[Jay13]

What about the rest of it?

Valid claims?

Your on the fringes of the legal system; what's your opinion?:D

As stated above, if the hotel employees gave out the info to allow this dude to track her to her room? I'd think they have a *major* problem. I would think reasonable expectations of privacy are an implied part of a contract for a room in a hotel, even if the guests fail to notice that those little brass sliding covers over the inside of the peephole aren't present.

But not providing sufficient security or video surveillance coverage to catch the guy if he managed to follow her up to her floor the night before and he figured out what room she was in all on his own? Not so much. Then there is at least an argument (not necessarily a great one, mind you) that she should have noticed this dude following her and not gone into her room, called security, or smeared some vaseline on the peephole or some-such.

The real issue is damages. If the hotel employees participated, then maybe a punitive type award would be appropriate (I have no idea whether the suit is state-law based or federal due to the posting on the internet). But if the case is one where she has to prove real economic loss??? I'm not so sure. The fact that Marriott wouldn't settle such an obviously public case leads me to believe they think their liability is limited to actual proven economic damages and that, if anything, her popularity (and internet presence:D) skyrocketed as a result.

[NB2K]

As stated above, if the hotel employees gave out the info to allow this dude to track her to her room? I'd think they have a *major* problem. I would think reasonable expectations of privacy are an implied part of a contract for a room in a hotel, even if the guests fail to notice that those little brass sliding covers over the inside of the peephole aren't present.

But not providing sufficient security or video surveillance coverage to catch the guy if he managed to follow her up to her floor the night before and he figured out what room she was in all on his own? Not so much. Then there is at least an argument (not necessarily a great one, mind you) that she should have noticed this dude following her and not gone into her room, called security, or smeared some vaseline on the peephole or some-such.

The real issue is damages. If the hotel employees participated, then maybe a punitive type award would be appropriate (I have no idea whether the suit is state-law based or federal due to the posting on the internet). But if the case is one where she has to prove real economic loss??? I'm not so sure. The fact that Marriott wouldn't settle such an obviously public case leads me to believe they think their liability is limited to actual proven economic damages and that, if anything, her popularity (and internet presence:D) skyrocketed as a result.

I think it's been established that the hotel manger (clerk?) did give out her room number to the prev. (edit: Maybe not...)

If that's the case, I agree, why wouldn't Marriott settle?

If she can prove even the loss of one endorsement deal or contract offer, they are screwed.

I know one thing: get women on the jury.:D

[Prosecutor]

For the record, I do not think that this is a frivolous lawsuit...however, I do have some thoughts. These are sort of rhetorical questions...I am not trying to start a debate, but I think about this as a defense attorney and somebody who has a close relationship with the hotel industry.

What is the basis of the expectation that a hotel room location will be kept secret? There is no express agreement regarding privacy when checking into a hotel room (at least not that I have seen). In fact, here in NC you must use your real name as a matter of law. There are corporate policies, sure, but breach of a corporate policy by itself does not create a cause of action for a guest. Maybe some states have statutes that govern this sort of thing.

Remember, many cities, counties, etc...make your home address, tax information (sometimes with a picture of the house) available to the public or on the internet. In light of this, can we really say that there is some inherent right to privacy in a hotel room / temporary residence?

I have not read the complaint in this matter, but the causes of action are most likely negligence or breach of contract (if there is one). Either the hotel did not meet a contractual obligation or it breached a duty of care and this breach was the proximate cause of some foreseeable harm. Was the hotel negligent? Who knows...I have no solid facts.

Was this lady's location available through other sources? Could she be observed entering and leaving the hotel room? Could she have taken additional steps to conceal her location? If so, did she take those steps? Did she request that the hotel take extra steps to protect her privacy?

There are so many angles to this case. What is the impact of her celebrity? Was it foreseeable that weirdos could seek her out for a bad purpose...this could impose a greater obligation on the hotel. Did the hotel know of her celebrity status? Did the employee who gave out information (if that happened) know of her celebrity status. If not, should the hotel have informed the employee?

If the pervert requested information about her location, did he present a good reason for needing the information? Should a judge or jury consider this? Does his appearance and stated purpose matter?

Is it foreseeable that the person requesting information about her location would do so with the purpose and ability to invade her privacy in this manner? Did this really happen because of the some failure by the hotel, or was it going to happen anyway? This is the deliberate act of a highly motivated creepy weirdo intent on violating this women's privacy...is the hotel's conduct the primary cause of this situation?

...again, this is just stuff running through my head. I have no idea how this will shake out, and I have some thoughts about the questions raised above...I will just keep them to myself though. Not trying to start a debate. Too tired tonight.

[NB2K]

Excellent post ^.

Clearly, you are also on the fringes of the legal community.:D

[Rotorhead]

For the record, I do not think that this is a frivolous lawsuit...however, I do have some thoughts. These are sort of rhetorical questions...I am not trying to start a debate, but I think about this as a defense attorney and somebody who has a close relationship with the hotel industry.

What is the basis of the expectation that a hotel room location will be kept secret? There is no express agreement regarding privacy when checking into a hotel room (at least not that I have seen). In fact, here in NC you must use your real name as a matter of law. There are corporate policies, sure, but breach of a corporate policy by itself does not create a cause of action for a guest. Maybe some states have statutes that govern this sort of thing.

Remember, many cities, counties, etc...make your home address, tax information (sometimes with a picture of the house) available to the public or on the internet. In light of this, can we really say that there is some inherent right to privacy in a hotel room / temporary residence?

I have not read the complaint in this matter, but the causes of action are most likely negligence or breach of contract (if there is one). Either the hotel did not meet a contractual obligation or it breached a duty of care and this breach was the proximate cause of some foreseeable harm. Was the hotel negligent? Who knows...I have no solid facts.

Was this ladies location available through other sources? Could she be observed entering and leaving the hotel room? Could she have taken additional steps to conceal her location? Did she request that the hotel take extra steps to protect her privacy?

There are so many angles to this case. What is the impact of her celebrity? Was it foreseeable that weirdos could seek her out for a bad purpose...this could impose a greater obligation on the hotel. Did the hotel know of her celebrity status? Did the employee who gave out information (if that happened) know of her celebrity status. If not, should the hotel have informed the employee?

If the pervert requested information about her location, did he present a good reason for needing the information? Should a judge or jury consider this? Does his appearance and stated purpose matter?

Is it foreseeable that the person requesting information about her location would do so with the purpose and ability to invade her privacy in this manner? Did this really happen because of the some failure by the hotel, or was it going to happen anyway? This is the deliberate act of a highly motivated creepy weirdo intent on violating this women's privacy...is the hotel's conduct the primary cause of this situation?

...again, this is just stuff running through my head. I have no idea how this will shake out, and I have some thoughts about the questions raised above...I will just keep them to myself though. Not trying to start a debate. Too tired tonight.

I think you might have missed the part (understood) where someone installed a camera and or operated a camera in her hotel room or from another hotel room through a barrier that is expected to allow personal privacy in any part of the USA, and filmed her fully nude while she was under the perception she had the right to expect full privacy. It wasn't a crotch shot of her exiting a Limo like most celebs.

If the info was given out as to her whereabouts, I don't know the law as well as you but I'm sure it violated some confidentiaty agreement she would have mad the hotel agree to due to her fame. I would go after the scumbag who pulled it off.

[Prosecutor]

I think you might have missed the part (understood) where someone installed a camera and or operated a camera in her hotel room or from another hotel room through a barrier that is expected to allow personal privacy in any part of the USA, and filmed her fully nude while she was under the perception she had the right to expect full privacy. It wasn't a crotch shot of her exiting a Limo like most celebs.

No. I did not miss that part. Just because that happened...does not mean that the hotel was necessarily negligent.

The question...is was the hotel negligent or did it breach a contract, not "did something bad happen to this woman?" I am not sure how this will shake out...but it is not a slam dunk case for the plaintiff.

You are sure that disclosure of her room location violated some confidentiality agreement...I am not. It is possible...but I am not sure, as you claim to be.

I am not saying that she does not have a good claim, we do not know. It would be interesting to defend the hotel in this matter.

[Millenium Vette]

No. I did not miss that part. Just because that happened...does not mean that the hotel was necessarily negligent.

The question...is was the hotel negligent or did it breach a contract, not "did something bad happen to this woman?" I am not sure how this will shake out...but it is not a slam dunk case for the plaintiff.

You are sure that disclosure of her room location violated some confidentiality agreement...I am not. It is possible...but I am not sure, as you claim to be.

I am not saying that she does not have a good claim, we do not know. It would be interesting to defend the hotel in this matter.

Is there ever a slam-dunk when it comes to the law? It will be interesting to see how this pans out if it ever makes it to court. I would hazard a guess that the hotel will settle before it even gets close. Erin Andrew's lawyer refiled the suit claiming it is to avoid any statute of limitations. I wonder if it was really to get the case back in the headlines to motivate the hotel to settle.

It would also be interesting to see what the legal precedents are for both sides. The law can be an odd thing...

[Rotorhead]

No. I did not miss that part. Just because that happened...does not mean that the hotel was necessarily negligent.

The question...is was the hotel negligent or did it breach a contract, not "did something bad happen to this woman?" I am not sure how this will shake out...but it is not a slam dunk case for the plaintiff.

You are sure that disclosure of her room location violated some confidentiality agreement...I am not. It is possible...but I am not sure, as you claim to be.

I am not saying that she does not have a good claim, we do not know. It would be interesting to defend the hotel in this matter.

Did not mean to insult your interpretation of the events that took place.

The fact reamins the have the obligation to provide a safe, secure, private enviroment to all clientele ( defined as: customers or clients collectively) as to lawful privacy.

You have a limited right to privacy in your room. You have the right, unless the hotel or motel management has a reason to believe you are engaged in an illegal activity or are disturbing other tenants. If, however, management would believe you were doing something illegal, like using or selling drugs, then someone would have the right to enter your room, even without your permission. Under any circumstances, however, the police would not have a right to enter your room without a warrant.


Someone from the hotel may also enter your room, if it is believed you are destroying hotel property. Your room may also be entered if you are disturbing other guests.



Someone from the hotel may not tell your room number to an outside person. A hotel employee may tell someone if you are a guest and connect a phone call to your room. You do have the right, however, to tell management not to tell anyone you are at the hotel or connect calls.
Happy Living - Consumer rights at hotels and motels (http://www.happynews.com/living/money/consumer-rights-hotels.htm)

Technically he entered her room. :cert:

[Rotorhead]

And Someone from the hotel may not tell your room number to an outside person. A hotel employee may tell someone if you are a guest and connect a phone call to your room. You do have the right, however, to tell management not to tell anyone you are at the hotel or connect calls.

You are sure that disclosure of her room location violated some confidentiality agreement...I am not. It is possible...but I am not sure, as you claim to be.



Taken from the website I posted above.

[Kerrmudgeon]

You guys finished beating a dead horse?
:train:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/n35e8x.jpg

[Prosecutor]

Taken from the website I posted above.

Rotorhead...while interesting...the www.happynews.com website is not dispositive here. Interesting reading though. :)It does not define the duties of the hotel in this situation.

[Mirroredshades]

If you're going to scratch your ass and smell your own fingers, it was a voluntary act and the smell is all you are entitled to from the bargain.


Ok. I gots to know. Did she really do this?

:waiting:

[NeedSpeed]

You guys finished beating a dead horse?
:train:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/n35e8x.jpg

It took 63 posts for a picture??? :willy:

[NB2K]

This is why I like this place.

Among all the knuckleheads (myself included) you can generally find someone who knows whereof they speak.

[HeatherO]

soooo, what was she doing in the video :bigears:

[Jay13]

I have not read the complaint in this matter, but the causes of action are most likely negligence or breach of contract (if there is one). Either the hotel did not meet a contractual obligation or it breached a duty of care and this breach was the proximate cause of some foreseeable harm. Was the hotel negligent? Who knows...I have no solid facts.


The complaint (http://creditorsrights101.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/erin-andrews-complaint.pdf) is here. Not sure why it this filing is such a big deal though, it's literally a reprint of the one she filed in last July against a different Marriott in Illinois (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/pdf/erinandrewscivilsuit.pdf).

[themonk]

Dude, it also violated her privacy. Her potential income is in danger. I do not feel this is a frivolous law suit at all. The gal has her right to privacy.

She does yes, but 10 million, c'mon.

[themonk]

wrong country. No one is talking about your socialist utopia

I spit on your capitalistic ways <pitewie>

[Iron Chef]

Now you know where my anger towards Canadians come from? It's comments like this where you have no common decency towards women or other people in general, manners or even self respect. Hell maybe you'd like to see her get gang raped watching a hidden cam in her house. You're a sick mofo, and Kingpin is not too many steps behind you. You (no use of sir here, I can't call a person sir I have 0 respect for) should learn to respect honest hard working people and not accepting a violation of her privacy because she is an amazing woman to satisfy your sick fantasies. I hope her kids do not see the tape.

I have a feeling that this doesn't stem from being Canadian.

[lspencer534]

Ok. I gots to know. Did she really do this?

:waiting:

She did, but let me clarify: She scratched her butt and smelled her fingers. I couldn't tell how close her fingers were from her azzhole. It looked kinda bizarre in any event.

[boracayjohnny]

No worries. You're not missing anything. :sleep:

This is why I like this place.

Among all the knuckleheads (myself included) you can generally find someone who knows whereof they speak.

I'm glad you liked my lengthy explanation. I figured going into great detail would expose all my thoughts. :D

[NB2K]

I'm glad you liked my lengthy explanation. I figured going into great detail would expose all my thoughts. :D

I think you were kinda generous on the "bush" deal.

Warn't much bush there, near as I could tell.:D

[themonk]

3 mill for the rack exposure
3 mill for the butt exposure
4 mill for the bush exposure

:D

If that's the going rate, where do I sign up.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone got nude shots of me in my birthday suit in some hotel and published them would I be entitled to 10 million?

[kingpin]

If that's the going rate, where do I sign up.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone got nude shot of me in my birthday suit in some hotel and published them would I be entitled to 10 million?

No one wants to see your rack, let alone your bush!

:slap:

[themonk]

No one wants to see your rack, let alone your bush!

:slap:

I stare at myself nude in a full length mirror twice a day. :rubbish:

[NeedSpeed]

http://pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/erin-andrews-315x383.jpg

[kingpin]

I stare at myself nude in a full length mirror twice a day. :rubbish:

:fruit:

[PLRX]

I wonder if I've been filmed at the Marriott? :leaving:

Look for european porn. Thats where they send it if it is taped in US hotels/motels.

The bunny ranch tapes your visit.

[lspencer534]

Look for european porn. Thats where they send it if it is taped in US hotels/motels.

The bunny ranch tapes your visit.

What??? and WTF?

[kingpin]

Look for european porn. Thats where they send it if it is taped in US hotels/motels.

The bunny ranch tapes your visit.

What??? and WTF?

:rofl:
Something you want to confess?
:rofl:

[lspencer534]

[quote=lspencer534;502979]

:rofl:
Something you want to confess?
:rofl:

Uh...no...of course not. I was just surprised is all. Really. :leaving:

[PLRX]

Something you want to confess?
:rofl:

No :D

[Mirroredshades]

She did, but let me clarify: She scratched her butt and smelled her fingers. I couldn't tell how close her fingers were from her azzhole. It looked kinda bizarre in any event.



That's GD hilarious.

:rofl:

[Kerrmudgeon]

If that's the going rate, where do I sign up.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone got nude shots of me in my birthday suit in some hotel and published them would I be entitled to 10 million?

Ha,ha,ha.....the difference Myron, is that NOBODY would pay to see you nekkid, in fact most of us would pay not to!:rofl::rofl:

by the way, double negative of sorts with the nude and birthday suit.:yesnod:

[lallend]

3 mill for the rack exposure
3 mill for the butt exposure
4 mill for the bush exposure

:DNo bush, hardwood floors

Every time I see her on TV, I think of that and smile...