Connecticut hotel where woman was raped blames the victim

[snccoulter]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.startribune.com/nation/5...s7PYDiaK7DU2EPaL_V_9E7ODiUiacyKUnciatkEP7DhUr

A Connecticut hotel where a woman was raped at gunpoint in front of her children says the victim was careless and negligent.

The papers filed last month in Superior Court by the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa say the victim "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."

Prosecutors say Gary Fricker assaulted the woman in her minivan in the hotel's parking garage in front of her two children, then ages 3 and 5. Fricker is now serving 20 years in prison.

The hotel's lawyers were responding to a lawsuit claiming the hotel failed to prevent the 2006 attack.

In court filings, the woman's lawyers have denied those allegations.

You have to be kidding me did they want to pay the woman even more money

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I don't get it. Why was the hotel guilty of the rape in the first place. Seems to me if I'm in a underground parking structure and I get mugged... it was my fault for not being more observant of my surroundings and failing to protect myself? No? What happened to this gal is horrible and irrehensible. But was the rapist an employee of the hotel? Did they hire him to commit the act? How did her lawyers assume the hotel could have prevented such an act?

One could commit a rape at an elementary school, a barber shop, a grocery store, etc, etc, etc. Do property owners have that much responsibility that they now need to make efforts to prevent already grossly illegal acts from happening on their property? This country is far too litigious and this womens case is the shining star. The rapist was caught and serving time... but he doesn't have money to go after, I know, sue the hotel. Surprised the auto manufacture and parking lot contractor were not named in the suit either.

It sucks the hotel had to come at her like that but they have an ass to cover like the rest of us.

 

[Tacoma]

I'd like to agree with Kurt outright... but it all depends on the expectation of security at that particular hotel. What kind of parking structure WAS it? If it was typical of parkign structures, with open access, then I'd say she should pound sand. If was your typical NYC-style closed, secured structure, then she MIGHT have some kind of case. MIGHT.

What is not in dispute is that it's awful what happened to her.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I'd like to agree with Kurt outright... but it all depends on the expectation of security at that particular hotel. What kind of parking structure WAS it? If it was typical of parkign structures, with open access, then I'd say she should pound sand. If was your typical NYC-style closed, secured structure, then she MIGHT have some kind of case. MIGHT.

I didn't really take the closed garage into consideration, but I still don't think a hotel or any other commercial venue has an implied responsibility to protect you on their property. If that is the road we walk, metal detectors will greet everyone entering a ball game and parking lots will have armed security like civilizations in other parts of the world. There is some element of danger anytime you leave your house, don't expect to be babysat.

What is not in dispute is that it's awful what happened to her.

100% agreed, glad to hear the perp is behind bars too.

 

[EROK81?]

I don't get it. Why was the hotel guilty of the rape in the first place. Seems to me if I'm in a underground parking structure and I get mugged... it was my fault for not being more observant of my surroundings and failing to protect myself? No? What happened to this gal is horrible and irrehensible. But was the rapist an employee of the hotel? Did they hire him to commit the act? How did her lawyers assume the hotel could have prevented such an act?

Sorry, this is America. You have that statement backwards.

In the American justice system, the hotel was at fault. Not the poor defenseless woman.

 

[snccoulter]

it is kinda what they said that blew my mind. It was her fault. In other articles it states that the rapist had been see loitering in the area for a few days in the garage and it had been reported to security but they did not deal with him. In todays world there is a reasonable expectation of safety while on someone's property. If someone gets hurt on your property you end up paying or your insurance does. if some one gets hurt in your rig who ends up paying the medical bills? so yes there is a expectation of safety while on someone's property. Even if it seems unreasonable that is the way of the world now days.

 

[jamesgeologist]

I grew up 10 minutes from the Stamford Marriott. The Marriott's parking garage is also used by Connecticut Limousine Service everyday all day for folks going to NYC airports. There are tons of people milling about and there is a gate keeper as the garage is a pay facility. I can't tell you how many times I have been to that hotel and not once did I let my guard down. It is poorly lit and particularly dark at night. There is little in the way of "line of sight". Huge concrete pillars block your view around every corner. While I agree that she has little legal ground to stand on, if I were Marriott, I wouldn't have waited for something like this to prompt a redesign of the garage. At least spruce it up with some lights and cameras.......

 

[cruiseroutfit]

it is kinda what they said that blew my mind. It was her fault.

Its a CYA situation, they are being sued and by proving some degree of negligence on her part, they can remove their liability. Its a chess move that her lawyer not only forced, but should have completely expected. It sucks it has to come out that way but its 100% understandable that it did.

In other articles it states that the rapist had been see loitering in the area for a few days in the garage and it had been reported to security but they did not deal with him.

I read all over last night and never once found anything that said the loitering perp had been reported to security. In fact the hotel is 100% denying that they had been informed of the guy.

In todays world there is a reasonable expectation of safety while on someone's property. If someone gets hurt on your property you end up paying or your insurance does. if some one gets hurt in your rig who ends up paying the medical bills? so yes there is a expectation of safety while on someone's property. Even if it seems unreasonable that is the way of the world now days.

That is NOT the way of the world, that is the way of litigious United States, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it expected and surely doesn't mean I nor any other property owner needs to agree with it. Other countries laugh at the civil suits this country entertains and furthermore laughs at the rewards our high courts hand down. Its tearing apart our society brick by brick and while its normal to others, not to me

 

[Tacoma]

Kurt, I promise not to EVER hold you liable for any injury, perceived injury, or near-injury I may or may not ever receive on or near your property, person, vehicles, animals, et. al.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Kurt, I promise not to EVER hold you liable for any injury, perceived injury, or near-injury I may or may not ever receive on or near your property, person, vehicles, animals, et. al.

Lets just remove the opportunity and say your never allowed near my property, person, vehicles and especially my animals.

 

[gijohn40]

I do alot of work installing camera and lighting for companies and let me tell you... everyone thinks that a camera will STOP a crime.... sorry to tell you but it will not stop anything... but it WILL help police after the fact by giving a picture of what happened...

so if the hotel had cameras it might have been what helped catch the guy... but on the other hand... if it did have cameras and they guy was hanging around there alot then they should have been able to see this and do something about it...

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Remember what I said about frivilous lawsuits.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/14/Honda_Side_Window_Smashed_in_Tornado.htm

(CN) - A family demands $10 million from Honda, claiming a side window shattered and injured them when a tornado picked up their Honda Odyssey, which "remained airborne for a few seconds before plummeting to the ground and landing on all four wheels. Upon impact, the driver's side passenger window shattered and glass flew into the car."
Two girls suffered eye injuries from the glass and three other family members suffered face, chest and head lacerations, the family says in Prince George's County Court. One girl lost her left eye and another one needed eye surgery.
The father says he warned his wife - a defendant - not to go to the "back to school night" because there was a tornado warning, but she "was upset at the program for not properly caring for her child and decided it was necessary to drive her children to the program. ... A few minutes after her departure, defendant Achumba felt a shove from the rear of the Odyssey, and it was lifted into the air."
The Achumba family says the tempered glass Honda uses in side windows to reduce costs is not strong enough. They say Honda should use laminated glass, as it does for windshields.
They are represented by Jonathan Dailey of Surovell Markle & Isaacs of Fairfax, Va.

 

[SAMI]

^holy crap

 

[Tacoma]

Lets just remove the opportunity and say your never allowed near my property, person, vehicles and especially my animals.

Oh ho!!! Very well, sir. Veeeeeery well. MOOAAHAHAHAHHA

 

[Brett]

^holy crap

Ah, Americans, I love them so much. Fuuuuuuuck

 

[Tacoma]

hahah Brett you retard

 

[EROK81?]

Remember what I said about frivilous lawsuits.

Sad thing is I won't be surprised if they win that lawsuit.

And laminated side glass? Okay.

 

[Zombie]

Laminated side glass would work really well until the doors are blocked and car is on fire. Then the same people can sue Honda for listening to them and installing laminated glass.

"Even though I told you to do it, you should have known it was a bad idea and not done it, so I'll sue you now."