Comments on: Erin Andrews to sue the Marriott and Ramada hotels?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:25:15 +0000

So funny that the way in which Chris writes it makes it sound SOOO ominous.

“What is most shocking is how Barrett was able to secure his room in the Marriott next to Andrews: He simply asked.”

Ummm yeah, thats what ANYONE does to get a room next to someone else, they ASK. I would say ‘I need to get my room adjacent to My COWORKER Erin Andrews’, or ‘I need my room next to my sister Erin Andrews’, or My friend Erin Andrews is staying at the hotel too, can I get my room next to hers’. If there is an Erin Andrews actually booked there, and I was demonstrating that I already had knowledge of that, why would the hotel reservation agent distrust that?

None of this is breaching privacy. The hotel didn’t release a name. Why do you think celebrities DON’T check in using their real names? And I doubt Erin Andrews will ever check into a hotel without using a Pseudonym from no on either.

By: beermotor

beermotor — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:54:41 +0000

You are correct re: scope of employment; but I don’t think that is a winning argument. Seems like they would cast it here as a purely negligent act: employee breaches client’s privacy, without realizing that defendant was going to go hack the peephole and video her through it. Causation is clear, at least to any jury of Jimmies and Joes (tee hee).

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:30:28 +0000

There actually could be a very significant difference between an employee of the hotel and the hotel itself. If the hotel has articulated policies on not giving out guest information, and those policies are routinely articulated to hotel staff, then the hotel could argue that any hotel employee who provided anyone Andrews’ guest information was acting beyond the scope of their employment, meaning the hotel would not be liable.

It’s not necessarily a winning argument, but an employee’s misbehavior (particular if it’s criminal) won’t automatically give rise to liability on the employer’s part.

By: chris (not brown)

chris (not brown) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:29:20 +0000

I doubt the bribery theory. If the employee took a bribe to do it because he knew it was normally against hotel policy, why would he turn around and put a note in the reservation that said “guest requested room next to so-and-so?” You’d think he’d try and sneak it through as surreptitiously as possible,

By: beermotor

beermotor — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:51:07 +0000

Oh yeah and there’s not much difference between employee and/or hotel. Attorneys will certainly go after hotel over employee (respondeat superior). Hotel will fire employee, of course.

By: beermotor

beermotor — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:49:38 +0000

Intrusion on seclusion would be the proper tort for the videographer; the hotel probably would be subject to a standard simple negligence claim for breaching their duty to protect their clients’ privacy. No way that goes to trial, of course – Chris is right, Bingham’s gonna wrangle some $$$ outta Marriott. Andrews has to figure a way to pay the attorneys anyway, not like videographer is going to have bazillions of dollars.

By: Homyrrh

Homyrrh — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:24:09 +0000

@ Rob,

“In a 2003 information security survey, 90% of office workers gave researchers what they claimed was their password in answer to a survey question in exchange for a cheap pen. Similar surveys in later years obtained similar results using chocolates and other cheap lures, although they made no attempt to validate the passwords.”

How relieving.

@ dirtybird,

Sounds very plausible…

@ Chris,

…but does that make the employee AND/or the hotel liable?

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:52:37 +0000

It might not have even taken bribery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29

By: Brophy

Brophy — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:17:22 +0000

God bless this young man and it actually helped boost ESPN ratings.

By: Apdirtybird

Apdirtybird — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:12:54 +0000

I’ll tell you exactly how this happened, you bribe the front desk night person.

They’re hourly workers and don’t make a ton of money. Possibly ESPN treats them like crap, or they simply have no idea who Erin Andrews is.

Stalker is nice, it’s the overnight desk clerk who has 8 hours of 9pm until 5am in front of them in the middle of nowhere, he slips them a hundred while making small talk about how he is in town for the “big game,” thinks someone is staying there that is kinda famous, would like a room near them to hopefully bump into them and get an autograph, etc.

It’s not that hotels allow it, in fact I bet they have explicit instructions NOT to allow it, but if a guy can make a quick $100-$200 (when their weekly pay check is only $500) by giving out a room number, he’s going to do it. But now he loses his job for breaking hotel policy, unconsciously helping the stalker, and is probably out of the hotel industry (probably rightly so) for it.

But let’s not act as if we can’t possibly fathom how this could happen.