News: Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

[WoodysGirl]

Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

Ezekiel Elliott 's attorney said Friday that the woman who is suing the Dallas Cowboys running back after allegedly getting attacked by his three dogs in March did not have permission to be on Elliott's property...

Frank Salzano provided TMZ Sports with the following statement:

"The plaintiff was unauthorized to be on the premises the day of the incident and either willfully disregarded and/or negligently ignored her employer's policy which required Elliott to be notified in advance of any visits. We look forward to further establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence during the course of this matter."

Read Full Story

 

[JBS]

Weak defense

 

[rags747]

Give her $50k and a signed jersey and be done with it!

 

[BourbonBalz]

In order for this defense to work, I imagine Zeke’s lawyer would need to produce a signed contract/agreement stating what he is claiming. I doubt it exists.

 

[Reality]

The moment the lawyer said, "ignored her employer's policy", it was over.

Unless she was there to commit an intentional crime or she broke in, the fact he employed her will negate any claim of trespassing unless she had been formally terminated beforehand.

 

[Rayman70]

yeah..ZEKE may just wanna chalk this one up to be careful who you hire and MAYBE just pay teh medical bills and be done with it. A lump sum off the record settlement and turn the page. Life is about learning and Zeke sure seems to get himself in lots of messes. No judge in the world will accept Zekes defense of what happened. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Rayman70]

The moment the lawyer said, "ignored her employer's policy", it was over.

Unless she was there to commit an intentional crime or she broke in, the fact he employed her will negate any claim of trespassing unless she had been formally terminated beforehand.

^^^this^^^. Moral of the story is, admit when you are responsible and take care of business. Otherwise the optics of this can get ugly.

 

[Runwildboys]

Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

Ezekiel Elliott 's attorney said Friday that the woman who is suing the Dallas Cowboys running back after allegedly getting attacked by his three dogs in March did not have permission to be on Elliott's property...

Frank Salzano provided TMZ Sports with the following statement:

"The plaintiff was unauthorized to be on the premises the day of the incident and either willfully disregarded and/or negligently ignored her employer's policy which required Elliott to be notified in advance of any visits. We look forward to further establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence during the course of this matter."

Read Full Story

So she first tried to settle out of court, but Zeke wasn't interested. That's gotta give you pause, and make you think that maybe, just maybe he's not the one who was negligent.

 

[Rayman70]

In order for this defense to work, I imagine Zeke’s lawyer would need to produce a signed contract/agreement stating what he is claiming. I doubt it exists.

yeah, unless he can produce a signed agreement that clearly states what he's claiming, his goose is cooked. Judge Judy would destroy Zeke in a court lol..It would be priceless.

 

[Shinaoi]

Being zekes lawyer must be a lucrative deal as often as he needs one.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

The moment the lawyer said, "ignored her employer's policy", it was over.

Unless she was there to commit an intentional crime or she broke in, the fact he employed her will negate any claim of trespassing unless she had been formally terminated beforehand.

Just because you work for someone doesn't mean you can go to their property without permission.

 

[Rayman70]

Being zekes lawyer must be a lucrative deal as often as he needs one.

he must keep one on retainer 24/7 lol..365 days a year

 

[Reality]

Just because you work for someone doesn't mean you can go to their property without permission.

Unless she was there to commit a crime or broke in, no court is going to rule she trespassed while she was employed by the property's owner.

The employer can give specific instructions and can fire the employee if those instructions are not followed, but they cannot use trespassing as a defense unless a crime was committed or was in the act of being committed.

 

[Mr_437]

Advantage Zeke

See what her lawyer counters with.

 

[Rayman70]

Advantage Zeke

See what her lawyer counters with.

how so? I'm no expert on law, but I don't see how he has any leverage here. It was his dog.

 

[dargonking999]

Unless she was there to commit a crime or broke in, no court is going to rule she trespassed while she was employed by the property's owner.

The employer can give specific instructions and can fire the employee if those instructions are not followed, but they cannot use trespassing as a defense unless a crime was committed or in the act of being committed.

If she is on the property without the consent of the owner, then that is trespassing regardless of what contract.

If i hire a maid to clean my house on Tuesdays. And she shows up on a Monday that is trespassing. It doesn't matter whether she showed up to clean or steal.

 

[HungryLion]

Unless she was there to commit a crime or broke in, no court is going to rule she trespassed while she was employed by the property's owner.

The employer can give specific instructions and can fire the employee if those instructions are not followed, but they cannot use trespassing as a defense unless a crime was committed or in the act of being committed.

Isn’t there also a line between whether she was guilty of trespassing, and whether or not Zeke is liable for her injuries? Because if Zeke didn’t know she was coming and she didn’t follow established policy for notifying him, how is he supposed to be able to have his dogs kept in a place they can’t get to her?

not that I’m defending Zeke. I’m just saying there is a difference between somebody being guilty of a crime
And whether or not somebody is liable for their injuries without having permission to be on their property.

 

[Qcard]

Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

Ezekiel Elliott 's attorney said Friday that the woman who is suing the Dallas Cowboys running back after allegedly getting attacked by his three dogs in March did not have permission to be on Elliott's property...

Frank Salzano provided TMZ Sports with the following statement:

"The plaintiff was unauthorized to be on the premises the day of the incident and either willfully disregarded and/or negligently ignored her employer's policy which required Elliott to be notified in advance of any visits. We look forward to further establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence during the course of this matter."

Read Full Story

I will never give Zeke benefit of the doubt but IF the facts revealed result in trespassing then Zeke can not be blamed....Private Property is Private.

Silently folding my Tony Pollard jersey....

 

[America's Cowboy]

Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

Ezekiel Elliott 's attorney said Friday that the woman who is suing the Dallas Cowboys running back after allegedly getting attacked by his three dogs in March did not have permission to be on Elliott's property...

Frank Salzano provided TMZ Sports with the following statement:

"The plaintiff was unauthorized to be on the premises the day of the incident and either willfully disregarded and/or negligently ignored her employer's policy which required Elliott to be notified in advance of any visits. We look forward to further establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence during the course of this matter."

Read Full Story

If this is true, Zeke is innocent of any charges or responsibilities for what happened to her.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

So she first tried to settle out of court, but Zeke wasn't interested. That's gotta give you pause, and make you think that maybe, just maybe he's not the one who was negligent.

Yeah usually in these cases you are advised to pay a decent amount just to keep it out of the news. And no one knew about this. This was back in March. We are just hearing about it now because of the lawsuit. Just makes you wonder.