Marriott Says Woman Is Responsible For Her Rape
[Update: Marriott has dropped the appeal.] If you want to live dangerously, why not try an unrelaxing visit to the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa? It features a game room, a BBQ/picnic area, $10 a day Internet access, and the occasional mentally unhealthy transient wandering for days around the parking garage waiting to attack you. Best of all, if you are attacked Marriott will let you take all the credit for it, and then subpoena your friends and professional contacts, thereby permanently ruining any anonymity you hoped to maintain. Because at Stamford Marriott, if you're raped in our parking garage by a guy our security should have noticed and kicked out, don't come crying to us!
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.
"Stamford Marriott claims woman was negligent in her own rape" [Connecticut Post Online] (Thanks to Ryan!)
Update: Thanks to our readers who continue to follow up on this story and post links to more detailed articles, we now know a lot more about the situation. We thought, considering how scandalicious the accusation is, the fair thing to do is to repeat Marriott's side of the story—which is that the hotel's lawyers never made the claim directly, and that they tried to get it removed from their defense well before anyone else heard about it.
Here's what Marriott has claimed in this Associated Press article:
- Marriott says they did not subpoena anyone yet, and have not disclosed the woman's identity:
Marriott attorney Donald Derrico said the company was trying to determine the effect of the crime on the victim and that subpoenas have not been issued. The hotel will decide whom to subpoena on a case-by-case basis, he said.
"Her name was never, ever, ever disclosed to anyone," Derrico said.
- Derrico "said that Marriott officials asked his law firm to withdraw the claim in July, but that his associate had not done so because his mother died."
In this article from Greenwich Time, Marriott's lawyer says pretty much the same thing:
"From its inception, the legal case involving this tragic incident has been handled by the insurance company and its lawyers under the terms of the hotel's insurance policy, as is customary where an insurance company bears the risk of loss," said Stamford attorney Marc Kurzman in a statement from the hotel. "Interestingly enough, when we recently learned of this defense we requested that it be withdrawn."
Post a comment
Comments:
When I first read about this, I thought it was just the usual corporate knee-jerk reaction of absolving themselves of all responsibility... but Subpoenaing all those people she knows? If I were one of those people i would take a dump on that subpoena and send it right back to the CEO of mariott (recent photo below:)
@evilxlilbrat: It's common practice for media not to print the names of rape victims (or of children in certain incidents), but not, in fact, law. And indeed, laws forbidden media outlets from identifying rape victims have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional.
@Esquire99: Rape shield laws are the ones that limit the defendant's ability to bring up the victim's past sexual history and behavior in court. Not the ones relating to publication of rape victim names, though the term is frequently misused by laymen.
If you read the actual article, she is suing them because she got raped in their garage. While their response might not be as pleasant, it's not their responsibility to have a security guard escort every person everywhere, and they shouldn't have to face a lawsuit because someone doesn't understand personal responsibility.
@evilxlilbrat: Very, very sad. I give the newspaper a lot of credit for not identifying the woman, despite the information being out there.
Why don't we blame the person who was really responsible for the rape? It wasn't the woman, and it wasn't Marriott.
I don't really understand what happened to the woman. Was she raped or sexually assaulted?
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.
Ok. Horrible, horrible thing to happen to her AND her kids. And she is NOT to blame for her rape.
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.
@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.
@ecwis: They use the word "sexual assault" in most news articles. Unless otherwise specified (groping, etc.), it usually refers to rape.
@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...
@ARP: I doubt it's a Mormon thing. They sell caffeinated beverages and alcoholic drinks in their hotels, so there are certainly some allowances there...
@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?
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Maybe you missed the "mentally unhealthy transient" part. Not that I'm absolving him of responsibility and I certainly hope they lock him up in a prison for the insane somewhere, but there's no denying that the Marriott failed in their responsibilities as well. They deserve to have the hammer brought down on them.
What's the point in sending subpoenas to her friends and family? Are they supposed to come testify that she's careless? What a callous thing to do!!!
@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?
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: Of course Marriott bears some responsibility. The woman was assaulted in their parking garage.
@katstermonster: Yeah, they're kind of failing the "Be a fucking person" test there. But I don't think they should be forbidden to argue against their liability when they're being sued, as here.
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.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Marriott will probably be found guilty of gross negligence for letting this guy roam around (trespass) for so long, thereby putting the guests in danger. Then, Marriott will have to pay an "a-hole" tax to her in the form of emotional stress or distress.
@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.
@secret_curse: The lawyers for the Stamford Marriott contacted her friends. Apparently, the woman had not disclosed the rape to them, so the lawyers were the ones responsible for violating her privacy.
@secret_curse: RTFA. Marriott's lawyers are subpeonaing a bunch of friends, etc., and identifying her in the process.
@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: when the defense started maliciously subpoenaing her friends and associates who didn't know about the attack to, I have no idea, prove she's a negligent mother?
I believe there are protections against malicious discovery but IANAL.
@tundey: This may come down to something as stupid as whether there are signs that say something like "these premises monitored by camera security", as then she can claim they gave a sense of security that they did not provide. If the sign says something more like "Park at your own risk", it may be different.
@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."
@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.
This may come down to something as stupid as whether there are signs that say something like "these premises monitored by camera security", as then she can claim they gave a sense of security that they did not provide. If the sign says something more like "Park at your own risk", it may be different.
@katstermonster: Yeah, there are ways to deny responsibility besides saying: It was you're fault and PS you're a bad mom.
@secret_curse: The newspaper didn't violate her privacy, but the Marriott attorneys contacted all of her friends and family trying to get info about her out of them. That is how privacy was violated, by the attorneys, not by the article.
Ive stayed in that hotel - it's not bad. Scenic views of I-95! At least it's close to the train station. The parking garage is definitely a little creepy, but not any creepier than your standard-issue outdoor urban hotel parking garage. Is Marriott's liability different from if say your car gets stolen while in the hotel?
I just wrote to the Marriott via their online form and let them know that I canceled my reservation for October and will be urging my friends who are corporate travel planners and frequent leisure travelers to avoid their hotels.
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.
@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?
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
"how is the hotel supposed to think him dangerous, especially if they didn't know he was there?"
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.
@AgentTuttle: You just connected the dots as to why Marriot could be found liable, and why they 'put their guests in danger,' but then it's an 'a-hole' tax? Doesn't add up.
@tundey:
I'm trying to figure out how ownership of property makes them partially responsible for a crime that is committed there. That's a pretty messed up attitude that people in this country have. 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.
@TheWillow: I'd hate to be the one trying to do the company calculus on this, though. Do we lose more if we set a possible legal direction aside and thus lose the case, or if we get hit with PR mud for taking this direction?
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.
@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.
@Murph1908: I think the hotel has an obligation to keep unauthorized people off the grounds, and she being a customer, even as an observer to "creepy" people, does not share any of that obligation. If the guy had been there for 45 minutes before it happened, it would be more of a gray area. But the guy was there for DAYS; just the fact that he was there for that long should be setting off red flags, even if he looked like a clean cut, upstanding citizen. What if he were a sociopath that pretended to be a business traveler, and to the casual observer was harmless; ONLY the hotel would and should be able to see, through security and cameras, that someone was lurking for days- it would be something that any reasonably competent security guard would have dealt with.
@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.
@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).
A high end hotel/spa has an obligation to take reasonable measures to protect their guests. Not having video, or some other type of security measure in place to keep transients off the property seems to argue in favor of some degree of contributory negligence.
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).
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Actually, it can happen with individual ownership as well, which is why liability is a part of some, possibly most, homeowners' insurance.
That is very sad and is it illegal to violate a rape victim's privacy like that?