Blame the victim ... again
Like the U. of Carleton student who was brutally raped, this woman must have asked for it too.
STAMFORD -- A downtown hotel being sued by a woman raped at gunpoint in its parking garage is claiming she was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities," according to court documents.
The victim's attorneys also argue the hotel has inadvertently identified her to acquaintances by
asking them to testify.
The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa, along with the firms in charge of managing the hotel and its parking garage, made the claim as part of a list of special defenses filed in state Superior Court in Stamford last month. Such defenses allow defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true.
The special defenses, and the plaintiff's argument against them, are a few of the documents filed in a series of arguments and counterarguments as the case heads for trial, scheduled for April.
The woman filed the lawsuit in May 2008, six months after Danbury native Gary Fricker, 56, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a plea deal in the case.
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.
The victim's attorneys also argue the hotel has inadvertently identified her to acquaintances by
The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa, along with the firms in charge of managing the hotel and its parking garage, made the claim as part of a list of special defenses filed in state Superior Court in Stamford last month. Such defenses allow defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true.
The special defenses, and the plaintiff's argument against them, are a few of the documents filed in a series of arguments and counterarguments as the case heads for trial, scheduled for April.
The woman filed the lawsuit in May 2008, six months after Danbury native Gary Fricker, 56, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a plea deal in the case.
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.
In the papers recently filed by the hotel in preparation for the April trial, the defense claims they hadn't been notified about Fricker, that the attack was beyond their control, and that the woman and her children didn't properly "mitigate their damages." The hotel has subpoenaed several people who know the woman but were not aware of the attack, including family members, friends, a Pilates instructor, tennis partners, and a baby sitter. Attorneys for the woman, who was only identified as Jane Doe in court documents, say the subpoenas identified her to those people and were only filed in an attempt to intimidate her.
It would seem the decent thing to do (and the smarter public relations move) would have been for Marriott to cooperate with the woman from the start or pay her the damages. The defense could have just argued that no one but Fricker was responsible for the crime, but instead the hotel management is blaming the victim for endangering herself and her children.
It would seem the decent thing to do (and the smarter public relations move) would have been for Marriott to cooperate with the woman from the start or pay her the damages. The defense could have just argued that no one but Fricker was responsible for the crime, but instead the hotel management is blaming the victim for endangering herself and her children.
You know, because women shouldn't actually leave their homes with the menfolk along to protect them. (Of course, if she's an Afghan woman, she isn't safe at home either.)
Oh but this guy says it even better:
* If a guy sticks a gun in your back and threatens your kids, it’s your duty to “mitigate the damages.” I suggest spontaneously developing superpowers. Freezing time is a good one, as is the ability to generate a magical force field. Superspeed will do in a pinch.
Just leave that skimpy skin-tight superheroine costume at home, will ya? Cuz otherwise, you're just asking for it.
Corporations are protected in America from taking responsibility for anything. Individual rights no longer matter.
Posted by: sooey | August 15, 2009 at 09:05 AM
These cases are almost comical. Would you kill your watch dog because a fox stole one of your chickens? It is not any other person's or business's responsibility to give each and every person on thier property a personal body gaurd.
Doctor heal thy self. Protect YOURSELF!!!!!
Posted by: Keith | August 15, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Wow. Guess I'm boycotting the Marriott chains. They're not offering much choice to women other than to boycott them, are they? Shucks, they might see their business decrease. I know that when I'm meeting with a number of co-workers in one city, I will recommend that we all boycott the Marriott and stay at another hotel, simply because of issues related to safety.
Posted by: ...pat. | August 15, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Keith...
If I had a fox come in and steal my chickens, I would get myself another watch dog because that one is obviously a dud.
I agree with you, yes, people need to protect themselves, but once someone sticks a gun at your head, your only thought is survival, especially when their are children involved.
Guest have a certain expectation of safety at a hotel, and it sounds to me that Marriott did not meet those expectations.
Posted by: CatBoreal | August 15, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Cat, I suspect that Marriott is "getting another watch dog" as it pertains to the event which has transpired. Has there been a history of rapes at this Mariott or was this the first of it's kind? The issue is just how much security should anyone be obligated through the threat to law suit to give to others. Should the Mariott and all other businesses and private citizens for that matter, be responsible for providing an armed body gaurd for anyone that steps foot on thier property or just the females guests. I content that supplying security to another person falls under the realm of being a good sumaritain. A person might grow to expect security, however thier expectations may not necessarily be the same as any given good sumaritain. But alas, women do tend to expect people to read thier minds now don't they.
Posted by: Keith | August 16, 2009 at 06:46 AM
PS Not only do women expect others to read THIER minds, it would seem from everyone's comments that women also expect others to read a would be rapist's mind so as to anticipate that rapist's actions. Hello? If a women can expect other's to know what other people are going to do, shouldn't they themself's know what other people are going to do, and be expected to take appropriate action? This is definitely a case of do what I say, not as I do. Now, who has the control issues?
Posted by: Keith | August 16, 2009 at 08:37 AM