Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Marriott drops blame-victim defense in U.S. rape

World Aug. 18, 2009 - 05:14AM JST ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

0

Taka313Aug. 18, 2009 - 09:13AM JST

“failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities.”

Well...withdrawal or not, any company that would even hint at such an idea has lost my business forever.

Taka
0

TriumvereAug. 18, 2009 - 10:45AM JST

Incredibly callous and stupid move on the part of Marriott, who now risk losing much more money than they would have if they had merely lost the suit.
0

USNinJapan2Aug. 18, 2009 - 11:24AM JST

Her lawsuit contends the hotel failed to take adequate security precautions, monitor the parking lot and train employees in basic security techniques. The hotel also should have known about other sexual assaults before her rape, according to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.

Blame-the-victim is obviously not the way to go, but neither is blame the proprietor (hotel). Marriott shouldn't be responsible for the actions of the rapist who was in no way associated with the company in any way.
0

smithinjapanAug. 18, 2009 - 12:27PM JST

'The chain said the situation has “created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect” for victims of violent crimes.'

Not the situation, the response by the hotel chain, and as such it's not at all a 'mistaken' impression, is it? I hope this woman sues them for millions, if not billions, and I hope it gets more and more attention and hurts the hotel chain beyond recovery -- this is absolutely disgusting.
0

smithinjapanAug. 18, 2009 - 12:37PM JST

USNinJapan2: "Marriott shouldn't be responsible for the actions of the rapist who was in no way associated with the company in any way."

I agree, but they DO have a responsibility of keeping their property safe from such attacks, and the parking lot is their property. You even pasted that in your comment. I think many hotel parking lots are monitored, no? I know a number of hotels that accompany guests to vehicles after check-out if they are alone or without another adult. Marriott was clearly just trying to lessen the damage here and made a seriously bad call. Now they've not only sunk themselves in terms of a damages suit, but they've opened themselves up to all sorts of other potential litigation, and are clearly going to need to do a lot of PR to improve their image.
0

pawatanAug. 18, 2009 - 12:38PM JST

Reprehensible behavior by Marriott. Their backtracking doesn't hold water. I won't be patronizing one of their hotels in the future, for sure.
0

USNinJapan2Aug. 18, 2009 - 05:38PM JST

smithinjapan

Hotels do put security cameras and some even limit access to their parking facilities in order to prevent criminal acitivity. Some high end hotels (definitely not Mariott) may even personnaly escort guests to and from their cars. This however does not make them liable if a crime were to occur there. If the law required hotels (or other similar establishments) to actually ensure security/safety of parking garages and actually be legally liable far more effective measures would be in place, like 100% controlled access, security guards, etc. If the hotel is liable for a crime committed in an external facility like the parking garage, how about if the crime scene was actually inside the hotel proper, like one of the rooms, or in the spa, etc.? Should the hotel be liable for preventing all crimes on its property? It would behoove the hotel to do what it can to ensure the safety of its guests, but I don't believe that it should be legally liable. As sorry as I am that this woman suffered what she did, I don't believe she should be suing the hotel for damages. She should be content with the criminal sentence that her assailant is sentenced to serve.
0

SuperLibAug. 18, 2009 - 08:40PM JST

This isn't world news.
0

usaexpatAug. 19, 2009 - 12:22AM JST

Yep, this one puts Marriot in a very bad light. It makes me wonder what the hell some executives are thinking. Maybe the PR department should make the call in how to pursue cases like this, they might have a better clue how this makes the company look.
0

OssanAmericaAug. 19, 2009 - 12:26AM JST

Now they've not only sunk themselves in terms of a damages suit, but >they've opened themselves up to all sorts of other potential litigation, >and are clearly going to need to do a lot of PR to improve their image.

Smith..I believe you are dead wrong here. Marriot taking the "blame the victim" position, ie denying responsibility on their own parking lot, is the effort to prevent "all sorts of other potential litigation". Undoubtedly they've destroyed their image and it's a PR nightmare that conceivably may result in financial losses to them, but they haven't opened themselves up to "other litigation". It's the effort to prevent it that has put them in this mess, which I have to agree has an ice cubes chance in hell of finding sympathy from a jury.
0

OssanAmericaAug. 19, 2009 - 12:36AM JST

Ultimately, this action filed against Marriot smells more like something her lawyer came up with. In principle the perpetrator of the crime having been caught and sentenced ought to be enough, and the victim could still file a civil action against him for damages. But any lawyer would realize that Marriot has deep pockets and the bum of a rapist does not. By attempting to place the "blame" on Marriot, the hotel's legal team responed exactly as one would expect them to. Even without this article, Marriot would have been on the defensive anyway as juries tend to go against any "multimillion dollar corporation". Now that Marriot has made it clear to the plaintiff that they are able to play dirty as well, time to offer her some money to go away.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 19, 2009 - 01:46AM JST

OssanAmerica, should really look at what you have written. Placing blame on the victim. People assume a certain amount of safety being on the grounds of a large hotel. You are blaming her again saying this was done for the exclusive benefit of her pocket book. Marriott did not do a good job at patrolling its grounds from perps and was pocketing the money needed for proper security. I bet they did not even provide medical support. I can see a bored clerk telling her to call 911 and please stop bleeding on the carpet. This is suppose to be a top rated hotel not a bug ridden motel. People pay for the extra things and that includes personnel security. I too will not use that hotel as they are overpriced and overrated.
0

OssanAmericaAug. 19, 2009 - 01:51AM JST

Yuriotani- you should read what people wrote before posting a response. I didn't place "blame" on the victim. Furthmore you are placing the "blame" on the hotel. Let me ask you, is the hotel responsible for every single crime that is comitted on it's property? I'm sure Marriot wouldn't want you as a customer either.
0

MolenirAug. 19, 2009 - 02:57AM JST

Ok, I don't agree with the blame the victim defense. Ever. That said, she is sueing the company for something that happened in their garage, essentially claiming they're at fault for not having police patrols roaming the garage. They're a hotel, bad things happen anywhere. And bad people can attack at any time. Should the company be held liable for this attack? What if she was raped in a city parking garage, should the city, or the state, or the federal government pay?

While I feel sorry for the woman. The man who committed the crime is locked away for the next 20 years. Blaming the hotel chain and trying to cash in on this, when its clearly not their fault, is simply wrong.
0

USNinJapan2Aug. 19, 2009 - 07:31AM JST

YuriOtani

Marriott did not do a good job at patrolling its grounds from perps and was pocketing the money needed for proper security. I bet they did not even provide medical support. I can see a bored clerk telling her to call 911 and please stop bleeding on the carpet.

That's what the woman is ALLEGING, NOT FACT. You're assuming a lot just from reading this article.

Look, if the hotel isn't liable/responsible for something as minor as damage and theft to vehicles in the parking garage why would you expect it to be liable for more serious crimes committed there? Also, the woman is suing Mariott for allegedly failing to prevent her rape, not for any inadequate response it may have taken after she'd ben assaulted. Any single person accessing the hotel could be a potential rapist and can pretty easily sexually assault another person be it in the parking garage, a room, in a stairwell, etc. If your expectation is for a hotel to be able to prevent such a crime at all times and for it to be liable if one does occur anywhere on its property, then I would like to know how you expect them to do this. Cameras in every room? Security guards walking every hallway 24/7? You evidently wouldn't mind in the name of crime prevention but I certainly wouldn't want to stay in a hotel like that...
0

Helter_SkelterAug. 20, 2009 - 12:00PM JST

Blaming the hotel chain and trying to cash in on this, when its clearly not their fault, is simply wrong.

I agree. But the leftists here see businesses as evil, so they'll support any lawsuit against a business not matter how frivolous.