A matter of fault

By Ellipses

This is what this is all about.

Synopsis:

A woman is raped at gun point in her minivan in front of her 3 and 5 year old kids in the parking lot of a Marriott hotel in Connecticut. The rapist is apprehended 3 days later and is convicted and sentenced to 30 years in jail.

The victim then sues the hotel for insufficiently monitoring and patrolling the parking lot as well as a degree of negligence since the perpetrator had been seen loitering around the area the previous day.

Ok... I would say that there are a number of perfectly reasonable issues to sort through here.

First, the victim is understandably angry and frustrated... and the lawsuit appears to be reasonable enough.

Second, it would be reasonable to ask if the hotel is responsible for a crime committed on its property, and if it is, to what extent?

But what is wholly unreasonable is the supposition by the hotel that the victim is at fault for the rape for failing "to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."
...which is exactly what the hotel asserted in papers it filed with the court.

I really can't fathom a scenario where it WOULD be the victim's fault that she was raped at gunpoint in her car in front of her kids. In fact, I'd have to overdose on fucking stupid pills to even think of making that the official argument in a civil court. If this was the hotel's idea, they should be ashamed and mocked and shunned and castigated for such a callous suggestion. If it was the idea of the attorney, he should die in a fire. Sphere: Related Content