I'm admittedly not well versed in the Twitter world but is all this steam about a nude selfie referring to one with gigantic sensors over the good parts? Like who gives a ****? That's less revealing than a picture in a bathing suit. Or is there an uncensored one and I'm dumb?

Yes. And exactly, who gives a ****. That was exactly my point. She's a whore who just wants attention. And then there is Erin Andrews who probably didn't want this. I dunno, just comparing the two ends of the spectrum

semi-grunching but guys it's OK to both think what happened to her was disgusting and awful and that a $55M jury verdict is absurd and LOL.

Heh. Get a load of these absolute clowns:

You should not be surprised the jury said "well actually, sir, GET ****ED" and slammed them.

A large portion of the judgment is a direct result of the REALLY bad decision to in effect tell the jury "she wasn't damaged by this, she was LUCKY this happened because her career is awesome now!" That was so dumb. That is to directly discredit her to the jury when she's busy, meanwhile, crying repeatedly on the stand about the trauma of this experience:



Like, try to pick a worse look, right? That's a terrible look. Attack this person up here ^^^^ because she's LUCKY she's SUCCESSFUL because being naked in her hotel MADE HER SUCCESSFUL? When that's not even true ANYWAY?!?! Bad decision. Hugely bad decision.

To whatever extent the defense attorney(s) wanted the jury to kind of like them, they TORCHED that possibility. In return, the jury seems to have said "we hate you, and we were gonna award her a lot anyway, but you really made us mad, and really insulted her and made her a victim again, and frankly we tacked on about 20 milly as **** you money. That's because: **** you."

Another part of this is that we have no idea why, exactly, they decided the hotel was 49% responsible (being analytical, this doesn't really make sense to me, but I didn't hear the evidence). But once they made that decision - well founded or not - they were OF COURSE going to hold the hotel liable for a huge amount. Think about it. Clearly something terrible happened. Clearly the jury wanted to award damages. Clearly the jury thought pervert and hotel were almost equally liable. It follows, directly, that the award against the hotel was going to be almost as huge as the one against this pervert, right? That's not confusing. It's actually necessary.

Finally, the comparisons to compensatory damages in here are apples to oranges. You can't be like "yo people who DIE get $2M, HOW IS THIS $55M?!?!" You're talking about a compensatory award. Here, we're talking about a PUNITIVE award, the PURPOSE of which is to discourage future similar misconduct. It's not supposed to be a dollar for dollar estimate of loss, like a compensatory award is. It's SUPPOSED to shock people, that's the point.

Other than that, what mjw said is the only reasonable response. You weren't there, didn't hear the evidence, and didn't get to feel the emotion in the room either. lol @ you if you doubt that emotion and feeling affects trial.

EDIT: Still, this will be appealed.

Also, title changed. Beginning of this thread is so, so bad.

55 million is insane. Bitch is happy this happened and got the cake too. Can't stand her.

Just a terrible post.

Wow yeah that's some Great Benefit-level stupidity on the part of that exec

- $55 milly is nutso, though it may also be so high in anticipation of an appeal
- lol at signing autographs afterwards
- Finding the hotel at partial fault seems fine when you hear they let someone call, get directed to her room by saying something along the lines of "connect me to Erin Andrews", then let him request the room next to her
- Finding the hotel at near equal fault also seems to make sense if the goal is to award her damages considering the guy is broke (though whether or not "give them a bit more fault to ensure she gets paid something because the other guy is broke" is a move a jury should make is something I'm unsure on?)
- loldefense team going with the she was lucky approach given it was a thing BECAUSE she was already somewhat successful
- comparing the situation to a famewhore is silly

all in all closer to than

Nothing wrong with that post. $55 million is absurd. I don't think anyone really cares if she gets like $5 million, but lol at this being worthy of $55 million.

We have so many problems with the legal system, and these cases just exacerbate the problem. No surprise a lawyer is defending this garbage.

The hotel's argument is necessarily wrong either since her career possibly could have benefited, and there's no way this caused that much emotional trauma since she's been consistently reporting in a high profile job since the incident.

things you can do with $55m

- feed 37,500 starving kenyan kids for 10 years
- ameliorate erin andrews

seemingly calling her a "bitch" and "can't stand her" is the problem with the post.

I don't doubt she went through a horrible incident but also suspect that an awful lot of people would be ok with the trade-off of "horrible thing happens to me" and "I get paid $7m in compensation".

I'm just figuring that 100% of the $27m owed to her from the stalker will never materialize. he's broke. the hotel will appeal, and settle for some % of the $27m they owe, and would probably take 25% of their portion.

I think even if the amount was reduced greatly it would work the same. He can't repay even a few million dollars. It just lets her garnish his check if he's working.

I think him owing her a few million and the hotel owing her a few million seems about the right ballpark. Honestly the hotel probably should owe her less, lol at the 49% responsible, but I imagine they'll end up paying 5+ to make it go away.

Absolutely shocking you feel this way imo. Totally shocked.

I almost didn't ban him, but he deserves to be banned so I banned him. He'll be back. This thread will not devolve into variations on "bitches" or generic misogyny.

Lolllll

So...has anyone else been a paying customer who got banned from match.com and been told finding out why requires a court order? Really curious how rapey you need to be to have that happen.

adanthar that is great work

well yeah, this is the lol. juries acting based on FEELS. isnt there actual law that should matter? people arent surprised, the system is ******ed.

oh, I would want to discourage actions that cause deaths and dismemberments

thread was inevitably going to become the usual type of "debate" where ANY SORT OF DISAGREEMENT with a decision that favors andrews MUST MEAN you are against her getting anything. is there any number high enough to be worth loling at and opining "that seems excessive"? or does the fact that it doesnt actually correlate to the real cash money she gets just mean we should lol at everyone

Yep, all of this and then some. Many of the replies in this thread to the effect of, "welp, it's on the internet and I didn't put it there, no harm in watching!" confirm that there are some legit terrible human beings who post in this forum.

Good for EA--money obviously doesn't undo what happened to her, but at least there's some sense of justice at the end.

What the hotel did wrong: Guy calls and asks to be connected to Erin Andrews' room. They connect him and his caller ID identifies the phone number of the room, the last digits of which are the same as the room number. Also guy later calls and requests to specifically stay in room X (because it was the room from his honeymoon or something) that happened to be next to Andrews' room.

What the guy did wrong: Stalked Andrews from coast to coast, tracked her down to this hotel, used a ruse to find out which room she was staying in and reserved an adjacent room, removed the peep hole to her door, used a hidden camera to film her, put that recording on the interwebs.

Hotel 49% responsible, guy 51%.

Tilted by the "harmless because nobody has to pay" crowd

Nah, you're not understanding my post at all.

The law IS that PUNITIVE damages are NOT compensatory - NOT dollar for dollar for loss. They are intended to deter future conduct, not just by the Defendants, but by others. That IS law, and it DOES "matter," and it did "matter" in this case.

The liability for COMPENSATORY damages - whatever her estimated emotional suffering, medical / therapy bills, brand, right of publicity, wage loss, etc. were - is also determined by law, but different law. That's in the award as well.

The law you're looking for to reduce this amount is the Due Process clause of the Constitution. I said this will get appealed. It will. The appeal will be about the amount of the punitive damages award. The appeal will say that the award is wildly outsized compared to the alleged conduct and compared to whatever the compensatory award was (I can't find an article that identifies how much of the award was compensatory and how much punitive). If the ratio is like 150:1 or something (or even 10:1 in some cases), this award will probably be reduced, but it's complicated by the fact that the conduct IS, at least as to the individual defendant, completely indefensible. I predict it will be reduced as to the hotel and the pervert won't even bother because he's broke and unrecoverable anyway.

The thing is, you guys who are mad about the amount need to understand what the amount's purpose is before you get all pissed that it's not fair that she gets "compensated" more than someone in a terrible act of negligence or something. The entire POINT is that she's NOT being COMPENSATED; the punitive damages are a STATEMENT. They are logically distinct - entirely distinct - from the cases where someone loses a leg in a car accident and gets $1.7M or whatever. Unless there were PUNITIVE damages for the car accident, you can't even compare them because the award was expressly limited to NOTHING MORE THAN a dollar for dollar compensation for actual loss.

Your second red statement above is troubling. We do discourage death and dismemberment, depending on how it happened. Was it a freak accident? If so, punitives are totally unfair, right? What conduct are you deterring? If not, if the harm was intentional, then there WILL be punitives (if the jury finds them justified). Then what?

The other thing is you guys are talking about this as if people who have their arms meticulously and intentionally sawed off by some evil corporation get $1M, while naked chicks get $55M. I'd say you've erected an enormous straw man to get mad about, because PUNITIVE DAMAGES cases need to be compared to other PUNITIVE DAMAGES cases.

I do understand that at a fundamental level it DOES feel like $55M for being taken advantage of in this manner seems enormous compared to insurance companies paying out death compensation based on actuarial valuations of human life at like $3.2M, but the flipside is that the insurance company is valuing a loss (quite callous). The jury in this case is valuing its own outrage.

If what you're mad about is THIS JURY'S AWARD, then I mean, okay, lol this jury? The argument then HAS to be that this punitive award is too high. Okay, so what? The reason it's too high has NOTHING TO DO with comparing it to compensatory cases.

Also, if what you're mad about is THIS JURY'S AWARD, then what change are you advocating for? Different jurors? No juries? They're kind of a Constitutional right. . .

I get the difference between punitive and compensatory.

I think 55M is an excessive amount of punitive damages. Some people may also think this, some may think its too little, some would agree with anything. I also understand it will get reduced on appeal to some other number. Not sure why the people who make that decision cant just make this one but then cases might conclude in under 10 years which reduces those billable hours. I also think it is baffling and illogical to come to the conclusion that the fault is essentially split between the hotel and the actual guy who did it. So yes I am LOLing at this specific jury for determining that just like we lol at other specific jury verdicts that make no sense.

umm i am pretty sure insurance companies are footing the bill to erin andrews here and basically juries told obv the thing to the defense lawyers

I agree that the liability split is hard to understand, but again, I don't know what the evidence was.

What I'm VERY confident about is the jury intentionally shafted the hotel because of the case theory of the defense, which is that she should be happy, basically.