Then just maybe something good may come from this.

It isn't the corporate world's responsibility to ensure every place out there is as secure as a prison just so little ole you and me "feel safe". If you don't feel safe then don't go out.

If you do go out then don't try and blame everyone else if something happens. That's just the way it is........

Yes, the hotel has stepped over bounds of decency with their litigation tactic, but to even CONSIDER that she has any claim to privacy is absurd. She publicly disclosed the rape herself when filing the lawsuit, period.

This has nothing to do with whether the hotel was to blame for it (I think not) and it has nothing to do with whether there is something she could/should have done to prevent the crime... the rape was committed by the criminal and he alone is to blame for it. However, you have to be a very unreasonable person to say this victim has been taken advantage of by the loss of privacy in this case... she publicly disclosed it by choice when filing the lawsuit.

The level of ignorance and misogyny in the replies to this report is utterly disgusting.

1. The hotel has invited customers to park in their parking garage (in exchange for money), eat in their restaurants (in exchange for money) and sleep, bathe and leave their belongings in the hotel's rooms (in exchange for money). The hotel, in making this contract with its customers has undertaken to provide these services reasonably. It is NOT reasonable for the hotel to fail to remove an obviously disturbed street person who has taken up residence in their parking garage. So YES. As the occupier of the property who has invited the victims onto the property, and as a party to a contract with the victims, the hotel IS responsible for the injuries suffered by the victims.

2. I could hope that all of you men claiming that this woman could have or should have prevented her sexual assault and robbery (because women who face this danger every fucking day) deserve to be victimized someday just so that you might gain the slightest sliver of understanding of the reality. Are you suggesting that she should have parked her car in her room? Paid for valet service, because women should know that they can't be safe in a security patrolled parking garage with controlled entrances?

3. THE TACTICS OF THESE LAWYERS ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE. I practice personal injury law. I have worked for insurance companies as a defence lawyer. I'm not just talking out of my butt, here. While the language of the Statement of Defence where they claim that the woman and her children contributed to their injuries is "boilerplate" (i.e. standard pleading that you'd put in every Defence), there is no evidentiary basis on which the subpoenas could be remotely justifiable. They are nothing more than a thuggish attempt to bully and intimidate a rape victim. This tactic is unprofessional and inhuman. It should be punished, both with a huge award AND with disiplinary action against the lawyers.

Let me take you through b.s. possible justifications for this crap:

1. To see if the woman has a history of making claims. Irrelevant. There can be no doubt of the facts of this case. She and her children were assaulted and terrified, the criminal was convicted.

2. To see if she is "hysterical" or "exaggerates". Inappropriate. Her friends and family are not qualified to make this diagnosis. They have the right to conduct defence medical examinations. Their pet professionals can come up with an opnion that is admissable on this issue. Furthermore, the horrific nature of the assault in this case is well established. Any reasonably competant trial lawyer will tell you that trying to to claim that she or her children are "overreacting" to this incident will look like an idiot in front of a jury.

3. To see if she's a slut. IRRELEVANT. There is no possible basis on which her sexual history matters. She was accosted by an armed, violent, career criminal. This is not a case of alleged mistaken consent between people who know each other (the ONLY time a woman's history MIGHT be relevant.)

I hope this woman finds the strength to get through this crap and I hope the jury hands down a verdict that forces Marriott to reconsider their actions in this situation.

@dilbert69: No, you shouldn't expect this. Fighting dirty is not something any ethical lawyer would do. If Marriott, or their(presumably very large and well-funded) insurers company is instructing lawyers to act this way, they should have their asses handed to them by a jury. Any lawyer that took these instructions and acted on them in this way deserves to pay costs personally and face disbarrment.

I want to confirm that this is NOT acceptable conduct for lawyers in Canada. If this IS acceptable in the United States, then you should burn down the law schools and start over.

@SillyinPhilly: This is a civil case in which the issue is negligence, not whether the complainant deserved it.

The hotel's reasonable defences are that the hotel was not negligent.

The hotel's negligence or non-negligence has absolutely nothing to do with everyone this woman has ever met.

It is true that in some personal injury cases, a defendant might want to know if the plaintiff has a history of making similar claims. IN the present case, however, that is completely irrelevant. Teh injuries suffered by this woman and her children are well documented, fully investigated by police and bolstered by a criminal conviction at a higher standard of proof (criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt and civil is balance of probabilities.)

In short, there is absolutely NO reasonable basis on which the defence lawyers have issued these subpeonas OTHER than in hopes of humiliating a rape victim and intimidating her into accepting some bullshit settlement offer with a built in gag order.

And, yes, as a matter of fact I AM a lawyer. If an insurer I was working for told me to do this, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. If I was stupid enough to behave this way, I would expect the law society to be convening a disciplinary hearing for sharp practice and conduct unbecoming within weeks.

Often there is a disconnect between what one might think of as ok in a purely moral context, and what one might think of as ok in a legal context. Every lawyer has taken a legal ethics class, and probably every class studies the case where the two lawyers couldn't reveal the location of a murder victim. It's awful, and it's so hard to justify when looking at it from a personal viewpoint. But the law is not personal, and the legal system couldn't function if it was personal. (That is not to say I don't think there should be a lot of changes.)

So no, as a person I don't think it's ok, but as a lawyer I do think it's ok. Fortunately, I rarely have to make those kind of calls in my professional life, but there have been times in my life where being ethical or correct from a legal standpoint has been tough.

I'm a security guard...when we see someone 'suspicious' or who didn't belong, we kick them out. Its private property and yes if something were to happen to the employees, we would be held somewhat accountable.

Also, does that mean that if you get attacked at work, you can't sue your employer, regardless of their negligence, if they didn't specify that they had a violence-free workplace?

A lot of people are claiming that others are blaming the victim. This is fine in a discussion sense, but if you believe someone is violating our rule, which states:

"Avoid blaming the poster or victim or commenting only to be negative

Please, suggest alternate courses of action, or add important information that might help others or that we missed. Don't attack people. Assume good faith. Tipsters need help, not ridicule."

...then please contact me at moderator@consumerist.com. With very few exceptions, I don't think most people speaking on Marriott's behalf in this thread have been attacking the OP or assuming poor faith on behalf of the victim. Saying that the lawsuit is without merit, for example, is debatable -- it's fine to disagree -- but it's not a rule violation in and of itself.

As always, if you have a problem with another commenter or questions about the rules, please don't disrupt the thread. Please contact me directly at moderator@consumerist.com.

You'll notice a few disemvoweled posts. These were largely for personal insults and other disruptions to the debate and lively discussion in this thread.

@kth: Snstv sbjct mttr sd, y'r srt f sxst dch-bg yrslf. ndrstnd why y'd b ngry, bt mkng blnkt jdgmnts s lttl prsmpts jst th sm.

lt's ddrss th rl ss: THY THGHT T WLD B KY T CLL P HR FRNDS ND FMLY ND B LK "HY, YR FRND/SSTR/DGHTR WS RPD N R PRKNG LT BCS SH'S RRSPNSBL. CN Y TTST T THS?"

shld knw bttr thn t rd th cmmnts n cnsmrst rtcl whr wmn s th vctm f vlnt crm. 'd sy gd qrtr f th cmmntrs r rlly, rlly clrly msgynstc mn wh wll nvr, vr hv t py crm lk ths scnd thght bcs t wll nvr ffct thm.

thy sbpn'd hr FRNDS ND FMLY t tll thm SH WS RSPNSBL fr th rp. SH MY HV NT VN TLD THM BT T.

y'r dd, rght? gd lck vr bng bl t ndrstnd. bt y'r clrly gnrnt n tp f t, s dbt t'll vr hppn.

@Tr_Dp: dt. fr lt f rsns. frst ff, why sngl t th ml stff? r thy mr rspnsbl fr ths thn th fml stff?

gss y hv sm wrd gy ftsh. Tk t t Flshbt, ths s cnsmrst.

@ailema:
"Welcome to Rape Hotel, the new theme resort from Marriott"

i was at a party once and asked my date [we had been dating for a while] to walk with me to get something from the car. didn't stop me from being raped.... oh wait, if we were on a date it must not have been rape, right?

you can take all the precautions in the world and sometimes they don't mean a thing.

On another topic, why is it that they can prevent people from parking there without paying, but they can't keep transients from wandering around inside?

Their lawyers were responding to a summons and complaint in a legally acceptable (basically mandatory if they don't want a malpractice claim) way. They weren't sitting around in a dark room, clapping their hands shouting "BLAME HER." But once the oh-so-responsible *cough* Courant reports it, the facts are distorted and the hotel looks even worse than it would otherwise. I put a lot of the blame for this on the newspaper, for its irresponsible reporting of a fairly standard legal complaint.

Keep in mind that this article came from the same paper that last week fired the columnist that reports on consumer issues, as he wouldn't back down on writing an article about a major advertiser. It's also the same paper that consistently writes negative articles about one of our major companies here in CT, as one of this major company's competitors has a large stake in the corporation that owns The Courant.

The only way to see what is really going on is to go to the court and look at the file.

With that said, I do feel bad for the victim, and think the hotel should really think about settling and getting out of this PR mess, particularly as there is a lot of case law against them.

There are many many reasons a lawyer would decline to comment, especially in a case like this. We are not all media-loving money-grubbing sharks.

I would guess the attorney for the victim has cited other common law theories and statutes as well, but I haven't gone to the courthouse to pull the complaint.

Google "premises liability rape" and you will see many many cases that place liability on the hotel.

Thank you for contacting Marriott.

We wish to convey our respect and sympathy for Ms. Doe and her family, who were the victims of a horrendous crime in 2006.

Marriott is profoundly sorry that such a terrible thing happened to the victim of this violent crime. And unfortunately this situation has created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect and concern for Ms. Doe or other victims of violent crime.

However, out of respect for the privacy of the victim and the expectations of the Court in the pending litigation, we are not at liberty to comment on the claims or defenses in this case.

Regards,
Marriott Customer Care
>

A mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect for the victim? I just don't see any mistakes in MY impression...

even the best trained fighter at their peak can & will be ruined by the right combination of circumstances.

it's not like it's a 1st offense, it's not like he kept the kids from SEEING the assault.

i'll give 3 cheers when he gets a swiftly applied death penalty. not before.

or just throw a traditional beating followed by a lynching?

It's boilerplate. In this context, it's offensive and stupid, but it's not as though the Marriott lawyers actually sat around and said "Damn, those kids didn't go to therapy like they shoulda."

I'm sexist for interpreting his comment as be pretty clearly intended it? Cool story, bro.

you should have read the comments when the Shamwow guy beat up a sex worker. I almost started to cry. And I lost a little faith in humanity.

"The lawsuit says the assailant roamed the Marriott hotel and parking lot for days without being questioned by security and spent "many hours" looking for victims the day of the attack. The day before the rape, at least one hotel employee noticed the man loitering near the entrance of the parking lot and acting suspiciously but no one did anything, according to the lawsuit.

Hotel patrons also saw the man wandering throughout the hotel parking lot, according to the lawsuit."

Are all based on information in her suit, nothing else. Still not enough information.

Plus, in the article her attorney states:

"What happened here is a parent's worst nightmare," attorneys Paul Slager and Ernest Teitell said in a statement on behalf of the family. "It goes without saying that the impact of this horrific event on both the parents and the children is devastating. This event has permanently altered every one of their lives in a really terrible way."

That put a target on friends, neighbors, associates, whomever, for the defense to determine how "permanently altered" her life is. If her attorney didn't tell her to get ready for a proctology exam from the defense after making that claim, then they didn't do their job. And I'm not saying it didn't permanently alter their lives, (I can't begin to imagine that situation) but to get damages for it, they have to prove it.

The Internet has a loud and obnoxious segment of guys who love pussy but hate women, and you can count on them to come boiling out from under their rocks in response to stories like this.

There is NO DISPUTE that the woman was raped. The rapist has been found guilty of the crime.

So can you explain to me, please, why "how many guys did she fuck" has a thing to do with whether Marriott took appropriate security precautions?

The hotel has certain legal duties to take reasonable security measures. They don't necessarily have to be 'notified' - if that were the law, then everybody would just play see-no-evil. Marriott almost certainly had a duty to the victim, who was a guest, so the question is probably going to boil down to whether they took reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that since the client is a victim of rape, her attorney might want to protect her privacy?

The suit against the Marriott claims that they did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the attack.

And the Marriott really isn't in any position to try that 'blame the criminal' angle anyway, as they're blaming the victim and her toddler children. So they're making a claim of negligence too.

It shows that the bank could have taken action to prevent an incident.

But I think you'd probably be a little pissed if you were sued, and your lawyer said to you "I think we have an excellent affirmative defense here. But I am not going to raise it because it might sound mean to a layperson."

I'm pretty sure I left out an 'among,' as in "among the people who noticed him..." My bad.

But here is one article that references at least one hotel employee seeing the guy loitering and acting suspiciously, as did hotel patrons. I can't find any reports claiming one way or another whether the victim had seen him previously. Except, of course, the 'reporting' of some commenters here.

[www.boston.com]

"The woman, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe, claims in the suit that Fricker had been in the hotel and garage acting suspiciously days before the attack, as well as the afternoon of the attack, and the hotel failed to notice him, apprehend him or make him leave. During the attack, security personnel did not see or stop him, the suit claims"

You stated:

"People did notice the man hanging around the property for several days before the rape. Where did you even get that idea?

According to other reports, too, the people who noticed him were Marriott employees."

Do you have any other link or information that shows that the hotel did indeed know that this guy was hanging out in the garage, other than what's she is claiming in he suit? Did she notice him and report it to the hotel? What information do you have that backs you your statements?

This suit is "Jane Doe vs. xxxxx company, DBA The Stamford Marriott". Unless of course this ACTUALLY is a corporate owned Marriott (highly doubtful).

"The woman, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe, claims in the suit that Fricker had been in the hotel and garage acting suspiciously days before the attack, as well as the afternoon of the attack, and the hotel failed to notice him, apprehend him or make him leave. During the attack, security personnel did not see or stop him, the suit claims"

Did she see him and report him to the hotel? We don't know from the information provided. While this is indeed a tragedy, especially with her kids there, we don't have enough information to determine if the the hotel was indeed negligent.

I interepreted his claim that Marriott isn't responsible as being a conclusion, based mostly on the fact that he 'filled in' the story with outright falsehoods and with assumptions that were hostile to the victim.

And he didn't present any of it as hypothetical. In fact, he was 'correcting' someone when he made up that lie that nobody knew the guy had been there for days.

So I stand by my assessment that craptastico is blaming the victim.

The fact that a lawyer does not want to play to the media is not telling of anything about the case

"MArriott ISNT responsible for her rape any more than she is, unless they've shown their security to be negligent, which they haven't."

They will try to show they have not been negligent in court, but this is not required to proceed with the case

Hope the national media picks up on this story. Marriott should be ashamed.

making eye contact and asking someone if they need assistance is a huge deterrent to crime in those situations because that person has just been made aware that you now know what they look like, how their voice sounds and are a confirmed witness that they were at the location at the time they were spoken to.

if someone was there for a long time and didn't have any business with the hotel they were asked to please move along. it didn't happen often because usually anyone who didn't have any business being there moved along pretty quickly after security wandered up and said 'hi'

If only we always felt it when we were unsafe.

I don't post this to blame the OP, I post it in the hopes that it will help someone.

So we're all clear--all rape is sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape, and the internet may answer questions you didn't exactly ask.

If Marriott hires a caterer who gives their guests food poisoning, they're liable. They can go after the caterer separately, but it doesn't mitigate their responsibility to their guests.

The same is true if they hire out a parking garage/security for that garage.

First, he claims that 'nobody' knew the guy was there for days, which is untrue according to all accounts. I have no clue where he got that idea. If he believes this, he is accusing the victim of lying, as he later incorrectly acknowledges this claim, but assumes its sole source was the victim herself.

He bases that assumption, in turn, on the fact that the article doesn't mention proof that the guy had been seen before. To a reasonable person, this would just indicate that the article is not a full account of the case. And a reasonable person would be right. The people who saw the guy prior to the attack did include Marriott employees, and the article never says the hotel was unaware of teh guy.

Finally, based on his assumption that the victim is a liar and his hostile and inaccurate interpretation of the incomplete account in the story, he forcefully concludes that "MArriott ISNT responsible for her rape any more than she is, unless they've shown their security to be negligent, which they haven't."

How can someone who misunderstands virtually every aspect of the article he just read be so confident in his belief that Marriott hasn't been shown to be negligent? The case has not even been heard in court yet.

@Trai_Dep: You haven't met many female corporate litigators, have you?

@floraposte: Not to mention they may be encouraging more of the same in the process.

Oh hey, the Marriott won't care if I stake out potential victims. Just gotta make sure I don't get caught after I rob that affluent patron!

@mrbenning: I sure as hell wouldn't. @_@

@katieoh: It's no more acceptible to be a presumptuous sexist just because you have a vagina.

Just sayin'...

That aside, I agree that it's low of Marriott to do what they did for sure. They're victimizing her further and delaying the healing process. They're bastards for it, for sure.

@Traveshamockery: I guess he's advocating an eye for a brown eye. /shrugs

@craptastico: Except that when interviewed by police, employees admitted to seeing the guy tooling around well in advance of the rape and not doing anything about it.

All your post accomplishes is to illustrate to the rest of us that you don't bother to seek out additional information before commenting.

"And it's all about money."

Disgusting that someone would be so debased as to surreptitiously blame the victim. The rape victim.

"If this happened on an individual's property, would you be saying the property owner is responsible for someone being raped on their property? No."

They would still have a case. Same principle.

To embarrass her so much, she'll drop a suit she's likely to win. That's the purpose.

@Wombatish: I don't think floraposte was being mean or whatnot. I think that ecwis was asking a question quite innocently, and a lot of people replied politely. However, sburnap42 was the one to jump on ecwis for the question, and TCama and others defended the question and the poster.

Most people don't know that sexual assault includes rape. Some articles make it seem as if they are different things. It's understandable if you don't read about a lot of crime or are versed in the jargon. Just like when you read articles, a lawyer should only cited as "attorney" if they are part of an active case.

@mythago: They sent a subpeona to her BABYSITTER for god's sake. Also, I think to her Pilates instructor, tennis partner and several other people COMPLETELY univolved in the attack.

/

Precisely. It's not like this is outlandish. This will be decided by a court, not internet people's opinions. No Marriott employee is going to prison.

A few years ago here in South Florida, there was a woman who was raped in a parking garage who won a $40 million dollar judgment against the owners of the garage (I think the money was lowered though). If there are any citation nazis out there *rolls eyes* I'm sure I could find it, but hey, looks like we all have internet access if we're on consumerist.

"unless they've shown their security to be negligent, which they haven't."

No, whether the security was negligent is one of the things that will be established in court

@Julia789: Not to mention the future costs for when her kids are actually old enough to understand what happened beyond, "a bad man hurt mom." I can't imagine that kind of horror for those kids, and for their mother. And now half the family and friends and a bunch of strangers know too.

@satoru: I think her lawyer is "taking the high road" here by keeping quiet. He will likely make his move in court, not in the press. He is probably honoring his client's wish for discretion, unlike Marriott's attorneys.

@katieoh: I agree, calling her family members, friends and neighbors to say "______ was raped, we need you to come attest to her character in court, is she careless?" is really horrible.

I can understand them putting up the defense of "the attack was beyond our control" (although the facts suggest otherwise) but there is a big difference between "it was beyond our control" and "it's your fault."

I wonder if it is not Marriott's lawyers, but their insurance company's lawyers? Regardless, in-house counsel usually works in conjunction with outside lawyers on company matters, so they would have been at least aware of the tactic.

Settling would have been in the best interest of the hotel, as well as the victim, to not have to go through this SECOND nightmare. As if the first attack was not enough! She is being attacked again.

I'm sure he just didn't spend 8 minutes phrasing his query, and just went ahead and asked, assuming it would be taken as the innocent question I'm assuming it was meant to be.

Even though these organizations have the name Domestic Violence in them, they also work in concert with Sexual Assault agencies to change the law if these shield laws are outdated or weak.

@lpranal: Snidely Whiplash strikes again...

:(

@mythago: I always point out that it also gives the victims a degree of anonymity when it comes to defining what happened to them. Some people say it reduces the seriousness of what happened to the victim, but I think it gives all of the victims a little more anonymity so that they can choose to tell their family and friends what happened, rather than have it right out there.

@mocena: Her counseling bills for herself, and her two small children who had a gun pointed at them and witness their mother's rape, are going to be in the thousands of dollars. Health insurance often does not cover counseling (and even if it does $40 weekly co-pays for three people add up). They should settle. Those poor children. The littlest one may not remember it, but the 5-year-old will never forget.

Have you personally ever reported to anyone that you felt unsafe, or saw something suspicious and were looked at or treated like a "helpless woman"

I ask because I have had women ask me to walk them to a car or a neighbor call and ask me to check outside their house because they thought someone was outside and I never joked, laughed or made any comment. I know many people and all of them would assist in a heartbeat and never make a comment so I'm more just curious if your results were different.

@TCama: Three cheers for this dirtbag to stay in prison. He'll probably die in prison.

I suspect that she took all the precautions she was capable of, and this was one of those situations, which are more common than tend to be acknowledged, wherein precautions simply wouldn't suffice as prevention.

@satoru: Because sometimes it's safer to say nothing, prepare your argument, and then speak? Because not all lawyers are the same? Because you can't be a lawyer from just watching an episode of Judge Judy? How is her attorney's lack of statement a telling sign? Or do you think that this woman is lying all along, even though the person who did it was convicted.

@the Goat: Because hotel employees saw the rapist lurking around their parking garage on several days leading up to the attack, acting suspiciously, but did not do anything about it. Police interviews with employees verified this. They saw the guy drive his van into the parking garage, park, walk around the garage for hours without going into the hotel, and drive away again. He was scoping the place out for days.

@DoctorMD: Yes, she was responsible for herself and her own safety. But Marriott was negligent in keeping their premises lurker-free and scum-free. Who walks through a parking garage with their kids thinking something like this would happen? Just because she wasn't expecting a crazy man to take her hostage with a gun doesn't mean she was being negligable or unsafe. Marriott has a responsibility to keep its premises safe.

@ailema: This is precisely why rape is underreported. Women are told they're either paranoid or silly, and when bad things happen they're told they should have known better, and when they do see and suspect something is going on, they're being told that they're paranoid, silly people who are afraid of everything. Well, which is it? Am I supposed to be fearless or helpless, because a great deal of people think women should be protected from everything or blamed when something bad happens to them. I'm pretty aware of my environment, whether I'm in my office or on the street. But I sure hope someone listens to me if I say there's something going on that someone needs to be aware of.

The people blaming the victim includes everyone who, for whatever reason, assumed that the victim was the one who saw the man prior to the rape and failed to report his presence, the hotel was NOT aware of his presence, she is just trying to 'shake down' the hotel because they have money, or any other assumption that's either directly countered in the article, or isn't explicitly stated and is obviously based on the reader's personal bias.

Here are a few selected quotes to illustrate:

"Because Marriott is the deep pocket. Sue the transient and you won't be able to recover the judgment."

"nobody knew the transient was there for days. The article didn't even mention any proof that the transient had been in the garage previously other than the victims statement. Marriott was absolutely wrong to subpeona her friends, but MArriott ISNT responsible for her rape any more than she is, unless they've shown their security to be negligent, which they haven't."

"If she didn't think he was dangerous enough to report him on the previous occasions, how is the hotel supposed to think him dangerous, especially if they didn't know he was there?"

"And it's all about money. If this happened on an individual's property, would you be saying the property owner is responsible for someone being raped on their property? No. But Marriott has money, and when you're harmed you don't sue the people who are most responsible, you sue the people who are most capable of paying you."

"The key point in the Hotels Defense was that they were never notified that this person was dangerous, suspicious, or even that he was loitering on the property."

"Marriott isn't liable for something that happens on their property when it is completely out of their control. [...]The lawsuit is frivolous. "

"From the quote, it appears that the rape vicitim at least saw the man and suspected something, but there is nothing about the victim making a report or notifying security of the incidents prior."

"The main point being, everyone needs to protect themselves, notify security wherever you are if you see something out of place or that makes you feel uncomfortable. We do have to be responsible for some level of our own security."

@Rachacha: So if you're promiscuous you deserve it, or there's a reason why it should happen to you? If you've called for help and the suspect flees and then is convicted, it's possible you lied? Because she was in a parking garage with her kids, she might be negligent?

I walk into a bank and there's a guy in a black hoodie with a gun by his side, is it my fault for being taken hostage because I was supposed to notice him?

What could her tennis partner or pilates instructor or her children's babysitter possibly have to say about this case? Why on earth would they need to be subpoena these people, other than to shame the victim into dropping the lawsuit?

Marriott's lawyers in this case are just practicing their freedom of religion (to their benefit).

Where do they get such notions?

Hell, most places have signs saying they're not responsible if your car gets stolen from their lot.

Marriott isn't liable for something that happens on their property when it is completely out of their control. Just like it's not the city's fault if you get mugged on their sidewalk. You can't sue the cops for not protecting you if they don't know anything is wrong.

All that being said, Marriott is being a bunch of dicks with all the subpoenas and such.

The lawsuit is frivolous.

Mission accomplished.

@ARP: I am not defending the action, only offering up a possible reason. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Would it not be in Marriott's best interest (financially and legally) to examine the woman's history? Did she have a tendancy to lie? Was she promiscuious? Did she somehow know this person who assaulted her? Was she on any medications that could have altered her sense of awareness or reflexes? Did she have any previous time in her history when she acted "careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities,""

Marriott's case appears to rely on their belief that she saw there was a potential risk, and failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent the attack. If they can show that she was under the care of a mental health physician and on mind altering medications, was in fincanial difficulties and was distracted or recently had an arguement with a loved one or was going through a divorce with her husband they may be able to show that she was distracted and did not notice a crazy man waving a gun around.

Again, pure speculation at a possible reason for calling her friends and relatives to testify.

Thank you. This is exactly what I find so upsetting about this.

I was responding to comments, everyone keeps saying that Marriott has a responsibility to keep you safe. I have never seen an advert or claim to that effect at any hotel or motel. It is not "Ayn Rand" its called your life.

Anyway, it is likely Marriott's liability insurance is calling the shots. And they are legally required to demand everything to be done when their money is on the line.

I suspect the case is either not credible, or is not anywhere near how it is being portrayed by the media.

Sorry, not buying the argument that personal responsibility goes away if you slap "Inc." after your name.

This is not blame the victim, this is laying out the facts.

It makes perfect sense, that if the victim here wants to hold the hotel accountable, that they would research as detailed a history of this woman as possible, citing other occasions where maybe she tried to frivolously or maliciously sue other large corporations for profit, had a history of claiming false rape charges, etc.

It's been said, if she didn't want the hotel investigating her, why did she sue them, then?

Dirtbags.

Does anyone really believe Marriott would hang themselves by volunteering information that they were warned?

Every corporation, from Ford to Big Tobacco to W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods had to be subpoenaed to reveal that they were hiding and withholding damning evidence of foreknowledge while claiming innocence and blaming victims.

Fcuk you, Marriott! Your room, beneath the Ninth Circle of Hell, is ready.

Those of you blaming the victim: You're not only betraying some pretty scary judgment clouding bias on your own part, but you're actively spreading lies about a woman who was a victim of an absolutely nightmarish crime.

Security's job isn't to just sit around and eat doughnuts, after all. :-\

"All the lawyers are saying is that you're responsible for your own safety."

Wrong. The hotel is responsible for your safety on their property. That's why they have security guards.

"However this is nobody's fault except the criminal who committed the act."

Wrong. If the hotel does not take reasonable and prudent actions to protect its guests, then it may be liable for negligence.

For example, it's common for signs to disclaim responsibility for items left in cars, or vandalism, but you're not going to find a "we're not responsible for sexual assaults, pistol-whippings, or armed robberies" sign anywhere.

People did notice the man hanging around the property for several days before the rape. Where did you even get that idea?

According to other reports, too, the people who noticed him were Marriott employees.

What led you to conclude something like that, anyway?

At the very least, some sort of sign stating "this area unmonitored by security, use caution?"

In lawsuits, failing to blame the victim is malpractice.

Unless I'm missing something here, what their lawyers are doing is raising an affirmative defense - in this case, claiming that the plaintiff's actions were in part or in full responsible for their injuries. It doesn't mean that the hotel is thinking "bitch, you asked for it".

Subpoenaing all her friends and family is a whole different bucket of crap, though.

@thezone: a hotel IS NOT responsible for total security of guests. they are responsible to provide rudimentary levels of security, but they aren't expected to provide total security. I didn't find one word saying the hotel knew about this guy other than the victims charges.

OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL DAYS? And this is not dealt with by staff?
They are FUCKING IDIOTS. Sorry for my Francais in caps, but SHEESH.

"But if you feel nervous about being in a garage (because you see something suspicious or otherwise), you need to take precautions."

THAT I agree with. I'm a huge advocate of personal safety, especially after having been a victim myself. People, pay attention to your surroundings. If you don't, it does not make you responsible if someone attacks you, but you lose the opportunity to possibly prevent it. I say possibly because you can do everything right and STILL be victimized.

Read Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear." It is an excellent book about personal security.

@dprboyne: He was seen lurking about REPEATEDLY. Not once. Repeatedly.

As a female who often must travel alone, and often at odd hours, I do expect some kind of watchfulness when I park in a hotel parking garage. I try to be as careful as I can. My keys are in my hand, not my bag. I hold them between my knuckles, so I can I need to defend myself, I've got some fabulous brass knuckles.

Now.

Imagine all that, while carrying luggage and handling a two and a five year old, who must be buckled properly into the car.

And imagine that the Marriot saw a suspicious dude hanging around several times, and didn't really do anyting about them.

These garages have sercurity. What the hell are those guards doing?

To insinuate -- that this woman should have been more careful to avoid rape - as the Marriot did -- is absolutely obscene.

With something like Marriott, which I would consider a decent place, I would expect reasonable security procedures and limited access to the property.

First, that she had personally noticed the guy. There's no indication of that. She could have found out that others had noticed him after the fact.

Second, that nobody reported him to the hotel. There's also no indication of that.

No, I'm not worried I'm gonna be raped, I just kind of wish the conference wasn't going to be giving Marriott so much business (enough so that we need an overflow hotel, also a Marriott). As I said, I hope it's just the Stamford Marriott that's being awful, but I don't know how much autonomy each location has.

Even if this isn't a company-wide policy, it does reflect on them. So I don't guess I'll be staying at Marriott anytime soon. If forced to, I'll be sure and bring my can of whoop-ass.

Now if that's the case, it's a whole different story.

Absolutely.

Did you see my comment above? If I am the lurker, I don't make myself visible by the patrols.

After a certain period of time, yes, I think the company has some liability.

But my issue isn't with the liability, it's with them broadcasting her rape to her friends and associates (To her pilates instructor? Really?) to avoid paying. It reeks of legal intimidation of a rape victim.

Marriott's attorneys could be trying to intimidate the plaintiff, but they also could be trying to run the clock on Marriott by doing a lot of busy work to pad their bill.

No, it doesn't. I never commented on that piece of it.

Was this guy hustling parking garage people for money handouts and not reported? Was she asked for money by him earlier and didn't report it to the hotel. Is that what the hotel is going to try to claim?

And from reading the story it does seem like the hotel lawyers were trying a SLAPP type defense (strategic lawsuit against public particpation) by asking for her contacts to be subpoenaed. Backfire is what this will do for them...

I think it's a valid question as to whether or not the hotel has any liability -- as in, the hotel is justified in defending itself. However, a "justifiable defense" in this situation means arguing that only the rapist is responsible, that they took proper security measures and that even the woman herself didn't report it. Subpoening all her friends and family, thus violating her privacy, as an intimidation tactic? Using phrases that suggest she's to blame? That's dirty pool -- and yes, I work at a law firm.

You do not have to be that gross and disgusting to defend yourself in a lawsuit. So Marriott (or, more properly, the thuggish cheap lawyers they hired) deserves the middle finger for this one.

@TCama: My kids are 2 and 5 as well. I know my 5 year old could whup some ass while the 2 year old backs her up. The mother should have properly trained her children in martial arts and had them qualified at a weapons range, or simply sat them through several episodes of Power Rangers.

Parents are so lazy nowadays.

Marriot is not being criminally charged. They're being sued in civil court for failure to take reasonable safety precautions that they are arguing could have prevented or stopped the attack. It's perfectly reasonable for them to argue that point, and to claim that they couldn't have reasonably predicted the risk, and that point would be hashed out in court.

But they went beyond that, and they blamed her and her toddler children for the attack, then they maliciously harassed her by contacting people she knew and informing them about it against her wishes.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: This is what the hotel could and should have argued, and without knowing more, I don't think any of us can judge the merits of the case. But the hotel obviously chose pure scumbag lawyers and let them employ pretty gross tactics, which is blameworthy in itself.

Second, parking garages are often not owned or operated by the hotel. They may be physically attached, but it's a completely separate company that is responsible for the maintenance, operation, liability (for crashes and such) and security.

"Blame the victim" is a gross oversimplification. All the lawyers are saying is that you're responsible for your own safety. Of course there are cameras, guards, patrols, procedures, and other systems designed to HELP keep you safe. But if you feel nervous about being in a garage (because you see something suspicious or otherwise), you need to take precautions. It doesn't say she was raped while the garage employees were there. If the guy snuck up on her, then there is nobody who can prevent that, short of roving armed guards with attack dogs and pepper spray (which would then make it cost $65 a day a park there).

There's a balance between vigilance and convenience. Parking garage is open to the public. Even if the staff questioned a so-called suspicious person:

Staff: What are you doing lurking around?
Perp: Oh I'm waiting for my wife to bring the car around.
Staff: Okay sir, have a nice day.

Nobody is saying the incident is a happy one or that it deserves to be swept under the rug. But a rapist committed a crime, was caught, and is now in jail. That's awful, and is to be universally condemned. However this is nobody's fault except the criminal who committed the act.

@Trai_Dep: Are you suddenly having a foot in mouth experience? Are you saying that those at Marriott that made insesitive statements must be male?? (In any event, it's not Marriott making insensitive statements, it's the lawyers and insurers -- those evil men!)

I think that any person staying at a hotel with a visible security presence has a reasonable expectation of more safety than you'd get sleeping at a truck stop. This is, after all, a primary reason why women and children often opt for hotels rather than sleeping at truck stops.

Dougie Howser notwithstanding, I think most children opt for hotels because that's where their parents take them.

If he was hanging out for that length of time, he likely "casing the joint" so he knew how to stay under the radar of security when he decided to assault someone.

All issues of negligence and liability aside, siccing a legal pit-bull on a rape victim and making sure all her associates know she was raped is a horrible, horrible thing to do. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of tactic.

I don't care if the lawsuit is completely frivolous (which I doubt), the rape was very real, and the way they've handled the lawsuit is beyond the pale.

@katstermonster: @Cant_stop_the_rock: @twophrasebark: @Rachacha: @Murph1908:

The victim was not the one who saw him lurking in the parking lot for days in advance.

Marriott security and employees are the ones who saw him lurking around, and did not call police, or even ask him to leave.

Police found out about the lurking in advance after the rape, while investigating and interviewing employees.

Employees recognized him in the police photo and said he'd been wandering around their parking garage for days, acting suspicously.

It's a shame more backstory was not provided for this article. It's very difficult to understand the situation without having followed the whole case.

The poor woman was buckling her kids into their car seats in her minivan in the parking lot, in the daytime, when he forced her into the back of her minivan at gunpoint and raped her while pointing the gun at her children. All in a busy parking garage. She only escaped because while he told her to not make noise, when she saw someone walk by her van window she screamed for help, and the guy fled. It was horrible.

@TCama: but it also encompasses a lot of other offenses, he was just looking for clarification, no reason to jump on him

@ARP: the hole in your argument is that nobody knew the transient was there for days. The article didn't even mention any proof that the transient had been in the garage previously other than the victims statement. Marriott was absolutely wrong to subpeona her friends, but MArriott ISNT responsible for her rape any more than she is, unless they've shown their security to be negligent, which they haven't.

Additionally, Marriott isn't just blaming the woman. They're blaming her children too: the woman and her children failed to properly "mitigate their damages,".

The danger being left for a long period of time is what makes it negligence, in my humble and un-lawyerly opinion.

I agree entirely. Prove that no one reported the guy, prove that you never saw him on camera, don't subpeona her frigging Pilates instructor...

@fantomesq: What defense would necessitate contacting the people (both the specific people and the number)that they did? They wanted to prove that she's not a careful person? OK. You don't need all those people to prove that. Call me cynical, but this was intended into shaming her into going away.

@Murph1908: The victim was not the one who saw him lurking in the parking lot for days in advance.

Marriott security and employees are the ones who saw him lurking around, and did not call police, or even ask him to leave.

Police found out about the lurking in advance after the rape, while investigating and interviewing employees.

@Murph1908:

I usually play the skeptic but...no.

You might have an argument if the creepy guy was a customer of the Marriott. But at the very least, the hotel security has the responsibility of preventing potentially dangerous people from loitering on their premises and harassing or attacking its customers.

I think that any person staying at a hotel with a visible security presence has a reasonable expectation of more safety than you'd get sleeping at a truck stop. This is, after all, a primary reason why women and children often opt for hotels rather than sleeping at truck stops.

What I find especially repugnant about this case is that the Marriot is not arguing that it is NOT responsible. It is arguing that the victim IS responsible. This is a crucial difference. And personally, I think that if the hotel management actually felt they'd exercised due diligence, they would have a solid case that didn't require them to rubber responsibility back onto the victim.

@Murph1908: OK. Let's say the lawsuit doesn't have merit. Does that give them the excuse to essentially shame her with her friends, family, employer etc.

They could have done the right thing, which is to defende the case on its merits (they were not negligent, etc.), but they went sleazy to shame her into going away. Whatever lawyer chose this route is a shame to the profession.

@chatterboxwriting: I think you nailed it. I think we can debate if Marriott is legally responsible for the rape (negligence, etc.). However, their litigation tactic had nothing to do witht their defense and everything to do with shaming her into going away. Not cool Marriott. Not cool.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Isn't it pretty much SOP to either have a security guard patrolling the lot or monitoring the premises via CCTV? At the very least, some sort of sign stating "this area unmonitored by security, use caution?"

* Yeah, OK. Fine. You try to find a decent rhyme that fits "...ikers".

Talk about a double rape. I stayed at this hotel many times when I worked for GE. That part creeps me out.

Ok, so you are a lurker in a hotel, scoping out women. When a woman comes, you make yourself visible to her because you need to do so to see her.

You see security coming, you do NOT make yourself visible.

Nobody can make every place 100% secure. Prisoners escape. Banks get robbed. Reagan got shot.

That will be the crux of the case. You are not responsible as a guest of a hotel to be a security expert to defend yourself from assault, a health expert to keep yourself safe from bad food, or a safety expert to save yourself in case of fire or other danger.

The level of behavior on the part of a guest would have to rise to almost ludicrous levels for the hotel to succeed in a claim of negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: It's not that simple ownership of the property makes them liable. If it is determined that they acted negligently, they are partially liable.

@FijianTribe: Sorry, I didn't notice your post, but I made the same comment above after you posted yours (Rachacha). Great minds think alike (either that or we are both idiots!)

No the hotel didn't assault her, but they could have done things one would reasonably expect to have helped prevent it from happening.

As to the question about whether she was assaulted or raped, sexual assault is the PC term for rape in some places. In our state, there is no crime of rape. It is classified as different degrees of sexual assault (ie 1st degree, 2nd degree).

@FijianTribe: True, but if people told the hotel about this person and you do nothing about it, the hotel bears some responsibility. Yes, people should be responsible for their own security to a point, the the hotel should "be a person" (since the law considers them one).

@Murph1908: I agree completely. The key point in the Hotels Defense was that they were never notified that this person was dangerous, suspicious, or even that he was loitering on the property. Look at it in this simple way. You are in a grocery store, and you slip on a wetspot on the floor where someone accidentally spilled some water. You were injured in the grocery store, and the store should pick up any medical expenses that you may incur. However, if you can demonstrate that someone told the store 20 minutes earlier about the wet spot, or employees noticed and walked past the spot repeatedly and did not clean up the spot, now the store is negligent and the injured I believe should be entitled to damages, pain and suffering.

In case you could not guess IANAL, so don't beat me up too hard if there is some nuance in the law that trumps common sense.

@TheWillow: Exactly. They could have said that satisfied their duty of care to have reasonable security, the attack was not reasonably foreseeable and that they were not the proximate cause of the attack.

I'd also be curious to know if there's been any attempt at settlement or assistance. There may be legal reasons why that'd be a bad plan, but I would think Marriott would want to have been Corporate Solicitous from the get-go on this.

Guest in hotel = not hotel security

Hotel security = people trained to keep customers safe and from being sexually assaulted on property

Imagine you checked into a hotel and got Legionnaire's from their water. Should the hotel's defense be "Well, we're not fucking scientists, didn't ya know?"

It's their property, they are liable if they have not taken reasonable and prudent efforts to keep guests safe.

I think the idea isn't that a hotel owner needs have dozens of security individuals at every possible spot in the premises at all possible times, but instead that if some harm is caused while in the business, then normal harzard insurance is the first place to look for relief. So you sue Mariott in this case, and the insurance companies lawyers say defend them

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Because when you stay in a hotel, you expect some degree of security and I think they should provide it. She claims that they failed to live up to that obligation.

Think of it this way. A person walks up to the playground of an elementary school, grabs your child and walks off with him/her. The school saw the guy hanging around and watching the kids, and the kids even complained to the school that he's been following them around and acting strangely. Are you suggesting the school has no responsility at all to the kids?

Rape is an under-reported crime and leads to feelings of shame. Victims often blame themselves, even though it's the rapists who are at fault. I don't know if the hotel is legally responsible (if no one had reported the rapist loitering, then how would they know?), but they could have defended themselves by saying that no one reported a suspicious person on the property. To blame the victim by saying she did not use her senses or facilities appropriately, and then disclose her rape to friends/family members when she had chosen not to do so, is one of the sleaziest things I have ever seen.

I have never written a letter to any of the companies featured here, but I would like to know that if I ever have the misfortune of being raped, that some company is not going to cast blame on me because I was trying to buckle my kids into their car seats in a parking garage.

@NatalieErin: Ah rats, I came in last...

@floraposte: It really is. There's no good answer to how to handle this. I stay in Marriotts a few times a year (my dad is a Platinum member due to business travel), and I've never thought twice about walking to my car alone.

@secret_curse: I think evilxlibrat is referring to the fact that they subpoenaed a bunch of people she knows. According to the linked article: "The hotel also subpoenaed several people involved with the family, including a Pilates instructor, friends, tennis partners and the children's baby sitter."

I believe there are protections against malicious discovery but IANAL.

@ecwis: This happened a block from my office. The woman was raped at gunpoint in her own minivan, in the middle of the day, in front of her two small children (2&5 years old). He pointed the gun at her children while he raped her, and said if she did not comply he would rape her children.

@secret_curse: RTFA. Marriott's lawyers are subpeonaing a bunch of friends, etc., and identifying her in the process.

@FijianTribe:
The main point being, everyone needs to protect themselves, notify security wherever you are if you see something out of place or that makes you feel uncomfortable. We do have to be responsible for some level of our own security.

I imagine this is tremendously variable depending on the where on the what, but torts do seem to involve consideration of the plaintiff's contribution to the problem at times. It's just really a horrific thing in cases like this.

I dont know anything about the case so I wont comment too much and I feel bad for the rape victim.

I agree with Cant_stop_the_rock, sue the rapist.

Just looking at the posting though, this will be similar to a grocery store liquid spill and someone sueing because they slipped and broke their him. If no one notifies the store and gives them adaquate time to clean the mess, the store isn't at fault.

From the quote, it appears that the rape vicitim at least saw the man and suspected something, but there is nothing about the victim making a report or notifying security of the incidents prior. Its possible that other clients also saw and said nothing. The mariott is not a lock down facility, you have basic security and basic patroling.

@Murph1908: "Dangerous" and "Suspicious" are two totally different things. Do you go around reporting the creepy people you see to the cops, based soley on the fact that they are creepy?

@evilxlilbrat: In what way was the victim's privacy violated in this case? She's identified as "Jane Doe." You realize that's a name used to fill in for an unknown or unreleased female name, right?

@Murph1908: I had the same thought. Marriott may have had no idea whatsoever that there was a dangerous individual hanging around. If, however, it turns out that even a single person mentioned him to an employee, they're in trouble.

Note: NOT DEFENDING THE HOTEL. I generally side with the rape victim, especially since in this case, the guy has been convicted in a court of law.

Still doesn't seem that they should have subpeonaed the friends, though...grr...

@ecwis: They use the word "sexual assault" in most news articles. Unless otherwise specified (groping, etc.), it usually refers to rape.

Agree.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Regarless of their lawfulness, this was a calculated litigation tactic to pressure her not to move forward. Sad but true, defense attorney's will often try to say that the woman(usually) was promiscuous or engaged in similar behavior on a regular basis (e.g. she's a skank who had remorse the next day, they were both drunk, it was concensual, etc.) and use friends and witnesses to try to prove that. But here that's not even a real plausible defense.

Marriott is owned by a Mormon family, I wonder if that has anything to do with it (i.e. she stepped outside of her place) or its just a combination of corporate/lawyer a*sholes.

But I am going to get into a lot of trouble for even suggesting this.

If she didn't think he was dangerous enough to report him on the previous occasions, how is the hotel supposed to think him dangerous, especially if they didn't know he was there?

I don't think she is to blame for her rape. But I don't think the lawsuit has merit either, based on what I have read.

The headline says she was raped but the actual story just mentions sexual assault...

She let him go through her wallet and told him he could take it, but Fricker demanded she take off her clothes. Fricker sexually assaulted the woman for several minutes, pointing the gun at her and her children and threatening to sexually assault one of her children.

@evilxlilbrat: Very, very sad. I give the newspaper a lot of credit for not identifying the woman, despite the information being out there.