Discussion
  • Read More
    Tupiniquim - white cat with hands is all of usAnna Merlan
    3/09/16 10:02am

    Sure, $$$ is nothing to sneeze at, but having won the case and shut down the assholes who thought she was scheming a publicity stunt with this is the best outcome I guess.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AliciaTupiniquim - white cat with hands is all of us
      3/09/16 10:05am

      Exactly. I really think she just wanted them to be held publicly accountable. The money is just icing on the cake.

      I’m almost certain the amount will be reduced but this particular Marriot was publicly repudiated and found liable - that can never be erased.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      $7CoffeeTupiniquim - white cat with hands is all of us
      3/09/16 10:08am

      My law professors would always say “never sue on principle” but I feel that cases like this are the exception. She has means that allow it to still be worth it even if she comes out of it with very little actual cash. I’m grateful that she used her wealth and fame to set a precedent for cases involving women mass media doesn’t care about.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LuaAnna Merlan
    3/09/16 9:57am

    That her stalker only got 2 1/2 years is a fucking travesty. He stalked her to several hotels, got the staff to give him a room next to her, altered the peephole and took video that he posted online. Why should he get freedom so quickly when Erin will have to live with the impact of his crimes for the rest of her life? It’s enraging.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      $7CoffeeLua
      3/09/16 10:12am

      I’m also enraged by the people who say it was “just pictures”. He’s a stalker. He could have killed her. No amount of money will ever bring back that peace of mind.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NomNom83Lua
      3/09/16 10:45am

      I can’t believe this lunatic was fucking with her peephole without a single person noticing. I mean, I know he did it, I’ just agog at how quickly it could go down. It seems any perv could pull this off, any time.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    montgirlAnna Merlan
    3/09/16 11:20am

    Their assumption about attorneys’ fees is likely incorrect. Lawyers only get part of the judgment when they take cases on contingency fee, which typically occurs when the client cannot actually pay the attorneys their hourly fee. I doubt Erin Andrews needed to use a contingency fee plan. She probably paid her attorneys by the hour, which means the attorneys are not entitled to any part of the judgment.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      NoGStringsAttachedmontgirl
      3/09/16 11:26am

      Most civil litigation firms (mine does this and so does ever other firm in my area) charge hourly and take a certain percentage of the ultimate award. the retainer usually reads something like: 33 1/3% if settled prior to trial, 40% if goes to trial, 50% if goes to appeal.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AnonymousBaseballFanmontgirl
      3/09/16 11:38am

      Taking a civil case to trial is very time-consuming, i.e, very expensive. An hourly bill from the initial filings through trial could easily reach six figures with at least another 50K or so spent at trial. I know she’s a celebrity and she makes good money but I’d be shocked if she paid by the hour on this.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GELLA - LLAPAnna Merlan
    3/09/16 10:01am

    prosecutors said in 2010 that he may have filmed at least 16 other women.

    and he is out??? hmmm

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AngstSporkGELLA - LLAP
      3/09/16 11:57am

      He can only be punished for what could be proven in court. ‘May have’ is great courtroom rhetoric, but not evidence towards conviction.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ten Earth ImpsAnna Merlan
    3/09/16 2:13pm

    As long as Michael David Barrett never makes another dime he gets to keep for himself, I’m satisfied. Bread and water and studio apartment for the rest of his miserable life.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AlexisAnna Merlan
      3/09/16 10:00am

      While I’m sure the money—or some money, at least—was part of the goal of this suit, I feel like just being publicly vindicated would be a huge thing in a case like this with the money being secondary.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        alynch345Anna Merlan
        3/09/16 10:14am

        Hopefully this will help soothe everyone who suddenly became very concerned about a hotel’s finances when this verdict was announced.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          jcn-txctAnna Merlan
          3/09/16 10:13am

          During the trial, they showed how the guy actually did the filming, which was an illustrated course for the late to party peepers but I have seen several sites/companies online that are selling a product that attaches to the cell phone and it is sold with a disclaimer “a novelty item, not to be used for voyeurism.” and they also sell a product that can be used to block the view from cell phone peepers for the hotel guest. They got both sides of the market cornered.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            NomNom83jcn-txct
            3/09/16 10:46am

            God, that’s gross.

            Reply
            <
        • Read More
          CommonVicesAnna Merlan
          3/09/16 10:45am

          So, I’m guessing Tennessee doesn’t have joint and several liability for torts (or at least those involving non-economic damages)?

          In states with joint and several liability, even if two defendants are adjudged liable, either one of them can be put on the hook for the full amount of the damages. Even if you’re only 1% liable, if the guy who’s 99% liable is broke, the plaintiff can come after you for 100%. The general idea is that making victims whole is a higher priority than making things “fair” between two or more parties that are collectively responsible for the damages.

          In my opinion, this is one of those circumstances where you could argue that’s a much better system than proportionate liability.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            qdanielsCommonVices
            3/09/16 11:11am

            Kind of what I was thinking too, but apparently TN has an apportionment of fault statute that limits judgment amount responsibility to the percentage of fault assigned to (any particular defendant) by the jury— I think that’s right, anyway. And I am assuming there is no right of contribution among joint judgment debtors, and no equitable/implied indemnity right on the behalf of the (comparatively insolvent) creepy videographer because he was not “passively” negligent, etc. Also heard someone say that if her lawsuit had been filed under the current law, her damages would have been CAPPED at $750k.

            Reply
            <
        • Read More
          JeepJeremyAnna Merlan
          3/09/16 11:17am

          Shouldn’t she just call JG Wentworth? 877-CASH-NOW?

          Reply
          <