 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa City Press Citizen , Fri., June 26, 1992, Pages 1A-2A 2-WAY MIRROR COSTLY FOR MOTEL
Pat McCartt and Tonya Naughton were not surprised when jury said the Canterbury Inn, Ltd., would have to pay $4.3 million in damages for invading their privacy. "What's right is right," Naughton said at a press conference Thursday. After a little more that four hours of deliberations, the six-woman, two-man jury awarded McCartt $100,000 and Naughton $200,000 for invading their privacy. Testimony during the trial showed that the incident caused more emotional distress to Naughton than McCartt. The jury also awarded $4 million in punitive damages -- $2 million to McCartt and $2 million to Naughton. Punitive damages are given to deter the defendants and others from similar conduct. This is a substantial award, according to a study of Iowa tort awards done by the National Center For State Courts. That study shows between 1980 and 1985, only two awards in Iowa out of 2,313 in the study exceeded $4.3 million and 13 exceeded $1 million. The survey is available at the Iowa State Judicial Department in Des Moines. McCartt, 26, and Naughton, 24, filed a civil lawsuit two years ago against the Canterbury Inn in Coralville claiming that their privacy was violated when they were watched having sex through a two-way mirror on their engagement night - July 1, 1988. They did not specify the amount of damages they were seeking. The couple will receive 25 percent of the $4 million in punitive damages. Tom Riley, the couple's lawyer, said. The remaining 75 percent will go to a civil reparation trust fund, which will be used for indigent civil litigation programs of insurance assistance programs throughout Iowa. That means the couple will get about $1 million plus interest, which Riley said is about $1,200 a day. Riley's fee and expenses will come from the total damages, since he took the case on a contingency basis. Keith Stapleton, the, lawyer representing the Canterbury Inn, did not return phone calls Thursday and could not be reached for comment this morning. Neil Trott, the vice president of Canterbury Inn, also could not be reached for comment. If the Canterbury Inn appeals the decision, Riley said, the process could take 12 to 18 months. McCartt, who owns his own security business, and the verdict sends a message that having a two-way mirror is outrageous. "If you have a two-way mirror in your hotel or shopping center or whatever, and it's being used for the wrong purpose, there's no excuse for that,' he said. During the trial, McCartt testified that on the night of July 1, 1988, he and Naughton heard noises and, for some unknown reason McCartt was drawn towards the mirror. After pulling the mirror away from the wall, he saw that there was an 8-inch opening in the drywall behind the mirror. Trott testified that he did not know about the mirror until McCartt called him and that when he found out, he immediately took it down. Trott says that the motel still does not know who put the mirror into the penthouse suite, or when and why they did it. Riley said a turning point in the trial was when the plaintiffs were allowed to reopen their case and call former Canterbury Inn employee Don Frickson to the stand. A witness earlier had testified that Frickson had told McCartt about the two-way mirror and so he knew it was there before renting the room. But Frickson told jury members that he had never met McCartt, removing any doubt, Riley said. McCartt and Naughton, who are still engaged and haven't set a wedding date, said filing the lawsuit and going through the trial was difficult. There were times during the process that they both were feeling down. "When we went into this, we realized we were put in front of the media and the public," McCartt said. "We were hoping all along the systems would work." Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C.
Home // Firm Overview // Attorneys // Practice Areas // Offices The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions that should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. A description or indication of limitation of practice does not mean that any agency or board has certified such lawyer as a specialist or expert in an indicated field of law practice, nor does it mean that such lawyers is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Copyright © by Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement. |
