Woman raped at gunpoint; Hotel blames her

Article here

Some choice quotes.

Quote :

On Oct. 10, 2006, Fricker stuck a handgun in the
back of the then 40-year-old woman and forced her and her children,
then 3 and 5, into their minivan as they left the hotel, according to
court documents.
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.

Quote :

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.

Quote :

The hotel also claims as a special defense that
the acts were unforeseen and beyond their control, that the woman and
her children failed to properly "mitigate their damages," and that the
hotel had not been notified about Fricker.
The hotel also subpoenaed several people involved with the family,
including a Pilates instructor, friends, tennis partners and the
children's baby sitter. The woman's attorneys argue the individuals
subpoenaed do not know anything about the attack, that the subpoenas
inadvertently identified her to those people and that it was merely an
effort by the hotel's attorneys to intimidate her.

So, this skeevy dude is hanging around the hotel for at least a few days? Nothing's done about this apparently. And she didn't 'mitigate their damages'? How exactly do you mitigate your damages against a guy with a gun, who rapes you and threatens your children with rape. At gunpoint.
I lack words. Aside from, if the Marriott head offices don't step in and slap this place down, I'll never be staying in another one again. But otherwise, no words.

I don't really know how it's the hotels fault.
The hotel maintains that nobody reported him (she says she had seen him for several days, but hadn't taken any action herself.), and what's the definition of " acting suspiciously"?

Quote :

During the attack, security personnel did not see or stop him, the suit claims.

Because the security guards are legally obliged to look into every car sitting in the parking lot every "several" minutes?

Don't most hotels have signs saying not to leave valuables in parked cars? That would indicate to me that you're sort of on your own while in the garage....

IMHO, blame the criminal, not the setting.

Still, the defense went to bit of an extreme. I would imagine that's the big mothercompany protecting its money.)

Regardless of whether or not the claims about the guy are true, by saying she did nothing to 'mitigate the damages' they are blaming her for her rape. And calling in people not connected to the attack, that knew nothing about it? That's a step way, way too far, and little more than an intimidation attempt. What were they trying to do? Get people in to say, "Oh, she has sex every now and then." so they can go, "Well, look. The slut obviously wanted it."?

'Failed to properly mitigate their damages'? What the fuck does that even mean? How can you mitigate your damages when you're being raped at gunpoint?

Let's not discuss who behaves dumber in the given situation (both are equal), and let's shift focus to why she's suing the hotel.

Because they have the cash? Placing blame on everyone else? Something else?

No, let's focus on the incredibly fucked up idea that she's SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN RAPE.

Preach It, Sister!
She should take the hotel for all its worth, a womens sexuality is the greatest thing she has and without it she is a man, aka nothing.

I don't think it's the hotel's fault, but sure as hell they shouldn't be blaming her.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, let's focus on the incredibly fucked up idea that she's SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN RAPE.

Eh, it's just the hotel saying something idiotic.

Well, in my jurisdiction, hotels (and malls and Wall-Marts, ect) DO have a duty to protect their guests. It IS their responsibility to be on the lookout for criminal types. If they don't 'notice them', they're doing it wrong.

This, however:

Quote :

The hotel also subpoenaed several people involved with the family,
including a Pilates instructor, friends, tennis partners and the
children's baby sitter. The woman's attorneys argue the individuals
subpoenaed do not know anything about the attack, that the subpoenas
inadvertently identified her to those people and that it was merely an
effort by the hotel's attorneys to intimidate her.

Is utter and complete bullshit from the hotel. They're dicks and their lawyers seemed to have surgically removed their souls.

Well now the hotel is stating that they were never going to use the defense, but they had to raise it because under the rules of civil procedure any defense not asserted in the initial stage of litigation is considered waived.

Which is true from a procedural and technical sense, but the hotel's lawyers had to know the blowback on this defense would absolutely kill their chances at trial.