In early Marc
h of 2016, a jury seated in Circuit Court for Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee found in favor of Erin Andrews in a very publicized trial involving issues of privacy and negligence. The name of the case as it was filed was Erin Andrews v. Marriott International Inc. et al., Case No. 11C4831. However, it will hence be known as “The Erin Andrews Case” due to its notoriety.
The facts of the case were that Andrews, a celebrity sportscaster and media personality, was filmed nude by a stalker through the peephole of her hotel room. The incident occurred at the Marriott Nashville, a hotel franchised by well-known global hospitality conglomerate, Marriott International, Inc. Michael Barrett, the man who had filmed Andrews through the peephole to her hotel room, had called the front desk of the Marriott Nashville and asked if Andrews was staying there. Staff replied that she was indeed staying at the hotel. Barrett then requested the room adjacent to hers and was accommodated. He then tampered with the peephole of her hotel room door by removing it from the outside, altering it with a hacksaw, and replacing. Barrett then waited in his room until he heard the shower in Andrews’ room. He filmed her through the altered peephole using his cell phone and later uploaded the video to the internet. According to an expert witness called by Andrews at trial, approximately 16.8 million people have viewed the video.
Andrews filed suit against Marriott International (the franchisor), West End Hotel Partners (the franchisee and the hotel’s owner), Windsor Capital Group (the hotel’s management company), and Michael David Barrett (the stalker). The suit filed by Andrews sought $75 million in damages.
Marriott International was immediately dismissed as a defendant. However, the jury returned a verdict for $55 million, which found Barrett 51% liable and West End and Windsor 49% liable. Accordingly, Windsor was ordered to pay $26.95 Million.
For hotel owners and operators, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of keeping guest information confidential. Though the hotel obviously did not condone Barrett’s actions, West End was found liable for failing to protect guest confidentiality. Also, Marriott International, the franchisor, was dismissed from the case and, thus, did not share in its franchisee’s liability. It is pertinent that a hotel has strong policies in place regarding security of guest information as well as ensuring its staff is properly trained when dealing with such matters. Any questions regarding the legal standards of confidentiality regarding guest information should be promptly posed to an attorney with expertise in innkeepers’ laws.
This article was written by Tyler Kemper, law clerk.
