Erin Andrews Trial Ends In $55 Million Judgment, But Her Stalker Can’t Pay

The Erin Andrews trial ended recently with the jury awarding Andrews with a $55 million judgment in connection with the nude peephole video recorded by her stalker in 2008. The jury determined that the hotel and Andrews’ stalker were both culpable, so they are each responsible for paying about half of the judgment.

When Erin Andrews originally filed suit in connection with the 2008 peephole tape incident, she named the owners and managers of the hotel where she was secretly recorded, the company that took the booking, and the man who actually recorded the nude video and uploaded it to the internet. During the trial, Andrews’ lawyers asked the jury to award her $75 million in damages.

NBC News reports that the jury settled on the lesser number of $55 million at the end of the trial, because some wanted to award the full $75 million while others thought that a smaller judgment of $10 million would be sufficient.

“Erin Andrews was going to get some money regardless,” one juror told NBC News. “It was how much and where was the hotel at fault?”

When the trial was over, the jury ultimately decided that the hotel and the man who recorded the peephole tape were both equally to blame, as the hotel placed profits over guest safety in putting Andrews’ stalker in the room next to her.

The jury settled on an award of $55 million, with Erin Andrews’ stalker responsible for about $28 million and the hotel on the hook for the remainder.

The man who actually recorded Erin Andrews in the nude and uploaded the video to the internet is unlikely to pay much, if any, of the judgment, as reports say that he is destitute and living in his father’s basement. Marriott is also unlikely to pay the full amount it is responsible for, as the judgment will likely be appealed.

The New York Post spoke with the father of Erin Andrews’ stalker after the conclusion of the peephole video trial, and he confirmed that his son is unlikely to be able to pay any of the $55 million judgment.

“He can’t afford $100, let alone $28 million,” Francis Barrett, the father of Erin Andrews’ stalker, told the New York Post. “If he could, he wouldn’t be living in my basement.”

As previously reported by the Inquisitr, Erin Andrews’ stalker spent two and a half years behind bars in connection with the 2008 peephole tape incident. He was found guilty of recording Andrews in the nude through a hollowed-out hotel door peephole, and he later uploaded the video to the internet when he was unable to sell it.

The New York Post reports that the convicted peeping tom filed for bankruptcy upon release from prison, listing $3,000 in assets and $159,891 in debt at that time. Today, he works as a truck driver at a Portland, Oregon, meat packing plant and lives in his dad’s basement.

“Most likely there’s going to be nothing there,” lawyer Susan Karten told the New York Post in regards to the likelihood of Erin Andrews extracting any money from the bankrupt ex-con now that her trial is over. “You can always garnish a salary with a judgment, but how much could that be?”

The owners of the Nashville area Marriott where Erin Andrews was secretly filmed in the nude and the operators of the hotel are likely to have deeper pockets, but experts say that the favorable trial result is unlikely to mean anything, as an appeal is very likely.

TMZ spoke to legal experts who suggested that despite the outcome of the peephole video trial, Andrews is likely to settle with Marriott for somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million, rather than risk an appeals court throwing the entire judgment out.

If Erin Andrews settles for $20 million from Marriott and recovers nothing from the man who taped her through a peephole, she could end up with about $11 million after lawyers fees and court costs, which would be reduced to $6 million after taxes.

Do you think that Erin Andrews’ trial had a fair outcome, or is $6 million too much, or too little, compensation for having a nude peephole tape recorded and uploaded to the internet?

[Photo by Mark Humphrey/AP]