![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moominmollyYou may have already read this, but I hadn't. Marriott is actually explicitly and directly blaming a woman for being sexually assaulted in their parking garage. It's an amazing and horrible story and reading it made me upset and angry on a number of levels.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-14 09:02 pm (UTC)I hadn't heard about it, either. God, what jerks. Sure is irresponsible of you to buckle your kids into their car seats!
This sounds like an excellent reason for a boycott!
no subject
Date: 2009-08-14 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-14 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-14 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 12:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 12:46 am (UTC)As opposed to arguing that it is fundamentally dangerous, negligent behavior for any woman or child to set foot in one of their parking garages.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 02:27 pm (UTC)The question is not "is the rapist liable" but "given that the rapist is culpable, is anyone else also liable?" The victim claims that the hotel was negligent. An absolute defense according to the common law is that the victim was contributorily negligent (had any bit of negligence, even if her negligence was tiny compared to the hotel's negligence.) This defense has been modified in various jurisdictions in the US, not sure what it is where that case is, but some version of it is obviously at work.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 03:04 pm (UTC)The comment was "Maybe they thought they'd be in for a PR hassle if they admitted culpability". So the question is who is culpable in the minds of the public.
And kcat's wise comment was "if they didn't want to admit culpability, they already had a convenient, guilty, not-them party to blame for the rape. HE'S CALLED THE RAPIST."
So they could have settled out of court, paid the $15K, and their PR team could have spun it as "our bit to offset the horrible thing this horrible person did, not our fault but we feel bad anyway, the REAL problem is the rapist".
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 03:40 pm (UTC)They couldn't have settled out of court for $15K, and that's not what she's asking for.
There are certain threshold amounts, different in different courts, you have to say in your initial documents that your damages are at least that in order to stay in that court and not be bounced into a small claims court. A quick google confirmed that a lot of CT cases claim damages of more than $15K. (e.g.: http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2959863420080129 ; http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-ap-ct-veteransdeathaug14,0,83240.story ) I bet that's the amount you need to say in order to get into the court she wanted to be in.
So despite the fact that she hasn't specified anything more than "my damages were more than $15K" the damages she's seeking (and the amount she'd settle for, if she would) are likely much greater.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-16 12:12 am (UTC)Depositions: She has to say her life (and those of the kids, she's also probably saying) has been negatively impacted in specific ways to get damages for negligence. And the extent of it is at issue - this isn't her fault or Marriott's, this is how it works. So, to defend themselves, Marriott needs to get facts about her/their life since the incident. They are entitled to ask people who would know, under oath. I don't know if there is a better way than was used to approach the neighbors et al., but unless Marriott throws their hands up in the air on this point and accept what she says, they have to find the facts out. I don't know whether they've done this in an unacceptable way or been evil why doing it, but from the facts in the article, there's no way to know one way or another.
Her negligence: the rapist is at fault. He did it. No one else. But now we're taking him out of the picture. She is suing Marriott saying they are at fault. No one at Marriott raped her. She gets that, and is suing for negligence - this is different than an intentional tort/act. But when it comes to negligence, you do and have always considered who had what duty, whether any duties were breached, and whether the breach of that duty caused the harm. And you've always had to consider the actions of the victim of the harm, be they murder victims, electrocuted idiots standing on the tops of trains, etc. That's just how it works with negligence, it sucks in some cases but is quite fair on the whole, and I don't see anything unique and special in this case, except that a pretty boilerplate defense (which we have no idea if they're even pursuing or developing, but you need to have it in there or you may be waiving it) has been reported in a sensational way.
Hate me now, avoid the rush.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 04:10 pm (UTC)I was taught that it's been modified in *all* US jurisdictions. The most common modification is the diminish the award by the percentage of the victim's contribution. For simplicity's sake, this is sometimes forcibly rounded (to, say, 25%, 50%, 75%).
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 01:11 am (UTC)[later]
But if I didn't, I wouldn't've learned about Sewradical's father.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 01:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 01:52 pm (UTC)This is a prime example.
-E
no subject
Date: 2009-08-17 03:28 pm (UTC)http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/assault+victim+sues+Carleton/1868796/story.html