Here is the infuriating story of a woman who was visiting a Connecticut hotel: woman was raped in front of her children and was told by the hotel that she was careless. This is an open talk thread where you can discuss this story or talk about anything you like.
I’m mad a hell just reading this story. The woman was raped at gunpoint in front of her own children while staying at the Stamford Mariott Hotel in Connecticut. The rapists name is Gary Fricker who is currently serving a 20 year sentence in prison. The assault occurred in a hotel parking lot, when she was in a minivan with her two young children. Read about it here and here and here.
She subsequently sued the hotel for negligence, claiming that the Connecticut hotel did not use reasonable security precautions and did not patrol and monitor the parking lot adequately. Clearly one can argue if a hotel should really be held liable for crime on their premises. Must all misfortune and bad luck be paid for by someone else?
I think not, but I think less of the Stamford Mariott, Connecticut hotel’s defense. They are responding to her lawsuit by claiming that she was careless and negligent. My goodness. According to the Marriott she “failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities.” They also expressed “sympathy” and “regret” for her predicament.
Curious as to reader thoughts. At what point should a defense team simply surrender for fear of the commercial consequences of their defense? And how much liability should a business really have for bad things that happen on their vast premises?
The Connecticut hotel woman versus the Marriott hotel gives us something to think about for a Sunday. Where do you come down?
Photo: Sam’s Hearing Life
August 17th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
…That might of been how they caught the man. Sorry everyone I didn’t finish my line of thought.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
All I have to say to bill and joe is that sounds like something a person that rapes women would say. I hope none of the female in your lives ever have to go through what that women. And children did. You soulless demons!!!!
August 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
no, bill, joe, and the other blowhards like them are probably not hard enough to be rapists, but instead are just “internet tough guys,” who would cry like little girls if they were raped, and would obediently (but tearfully) lick their own poop off their rapist’s dick when told.
the shocking thing to me is the idiots here who think a couple dollars out of Marriott’s very deep pockets – not nearly enough to even hurt them – is a “worse punishment” than what the rapist recieved; the rapist will be jailed for a long time (not long enough) and hopeful get raped a couple times himself…but all Marriott has to do is write a check: Big Deal.
also, for those of you who think that adequate security means catching someone after he has raped a woman in front of her children, that is not adequate: when your 08 revenues are $12,879,000,000 (yes, dumbasses, almost 13 billion) and your 08 gross profit is 1,623,000,000 (yes, dumbasses, more than 1.6 billion), then it is a real shame that you cant afford a couple close circuit and three or four $10 an hour rent a cops.
by my thinking, if Marriott spent only $23 million of the MONEY FROM PEOPLE LIKE THE RAPE VICTIM to provide adequate security, they could still keep $1.6 billion of OTHER POEPLE’S MONEY as profit…
or, you can just keep feeling sorry for big business…suckers.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Realistically the only person at fault in a crime like this is the one who committed it. Hotels are public accommodations open to anyone thus there can be no reasonable expectation that felons will be prevented from entering the property. The victim’s claim against the hotel is absurd, and the hotel’s counterclaim is equally absurd, but I suppose it has value in illustrating the absurdity of the first claim.