it's a sub-$1m sort of damage for a non-celebrity.
the law ought to treat these sorts of issues more equally.
the jury clearly set the award at a cost designed to harm the hotel chain. but their share of the culpability ought to be tiny. at worst, it's carelessness, implying the tort of negligence. they weren't the voyeur's deliberate assistant. more likely, they were also the victim of the trickster whose designs were beyond their expectations. a hotel room isn't a castle. nor ought it to be. the standard of negligence is reasonable care.
what occurs as a result? costs heaped on costs so hotels can protect themselves from lawyers. call it an attorney tax. except it will be invisible. flowing through a chain's insurance premium into the pockets of every hotel guest, whence funds are withdrawn. ka-ching.
all because erin andrews is greedy and entitled. and the jury is complicit.
this isn't how you get a healthy economy. it's not how you encourage people to invest in us business. it's a lawyer's paradise.
| 