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

[TheMarathonContinues]

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

Its a sound defense though. He's not responsible because he didn't know she was coming. And if they have proof she was suppose to be there at a different time.....I don't see how that defense doesn't work.

 

[Reality]

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.

To be clear, I am not bashing Elliott over this as it is not specific to him.

The fact she was employed by him though will make it nearly impossible to prove or justify trespassing unless she was in the act or process of committing a crime or she broke in or she had been formally terminated prior to that time.

The lawyer should have said "former employer" in his statement even if they fired her after the incident. By saying, "her employer" they basically admitted she was still an employee and at that point, trespassing is going to be nearly impossible to justify without some type of criminal intent or activity taking place.

For example, if you work a M-F 8-5 job but have a key and go to the office at midnight, fall and break your leg, your employer will be liable for it. If you go after hours and do not have a key and you break in, even with the intent to do work you could be considered trespassing.

 

[Qcard]

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.

That is it!! If she willfully disobeyed employers protocol or instructions then Trespassing applies BUT if she wasn't commiting a crime and did not break any employer protocol or instructions then a Judge can hold Elliott liable but punitive damages can be capped due to lack of malice on either parties...

@Reality correct?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

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.

That's incorrect. She didn't have permission to be there on his property at the time it happened.

You would be correct if she was there when agreed on...... but that's not the case

 

[Reality]

That is it!! If she willfully disobeyed employers protocol or instructions then Trespassing applies BUT if she wasn't commiting a crime and did not break any employer protocol or instructions then a Judge can hold Elliott liable but punitive damages can be capped due to lack of malice on either parties...

@Reality correct?

The problem is that instructions are subjective unless they were written down in a signed contract detailing those instructions.

However, even a signed contract would likely not be enough to justify trespassing unless she was there to commit a crime. Now, a signed contract with detailed instructions could possibly be used as an argument against liability, but even then if it says something like, "let employer know" that falls more under a reason for termination, not a defense against liability.

For example, if your employer tells you to take a day off and you show up anyway and break your leg, your employer is still liable for it because you are still employed by them.

 

[Reality]

That's incorrect. She didn't have permission to be there on his property at the time it happened.

You would be correct if she was there when agreed on...... but that's not the case

You are not really paying attention to what I am saying. I am not saying she cannot lose or that Elliott will have to pay her as there are other defense strategies they can try.

What I am saying is that trespassing is not going to work in this case. Unless she broke in or had criminal intent, the court is not going to rule that she was trespassing.

That said, I cannot see how Elliott gets out of this without paying her something if she was indeed there to clean his pool.

 

[Runwildboys]

The problem is that instructions are subjective unless they were written down in a signed contract detailing those instructions.

However, even a signed contract would likely not be enough to justify trespassing unless she was there to commit a crime. Now, a signed contract with detailed instructions could possibly be used as an argument against liability, but even then if it says something like, "let employer know" that falls more under a reason for termination, not a defense against liability.

For example, if your employer tells you to take a day off and you show up anyway and break your leg, your employer is still liable for it because you are still employed by them.

I'm not sure this is the same situation though, because it's more like he's a client of hers than an employer, unless he's the only person she does work for. I'm not claiming to know the law, but it seems like a possible difference. In which case, again, the lawyer would've chosen his words poorly.

 

[BrassCowboy]

well, this defense would work if she bypassed any normal approach to the front door, say jumping a fence, slipping through a gate without invite, entering property by means not normal to what is typical. Normal, besides the possibility of a front gate with a doorbell/speaker, would be up the driveway.
If she entered his property any other way than what she typically does, or atleast the public would have to, then I would think his case has some merit.

 

[Hennessy_King]

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.

I think you misunderstood. Zeke is not her employer. I believe she works for a company zeke hired and their policy requires the person notify the owner if they change the schedule. I believe that is what they are referring too.

 

[cern]

Specificity will be required to support this defense. Not just verbal claims. Many issues to settle. Pools need to be fenced. Was the fence locked? Did the woman have a key/code to enter the area? Were the services to be performed on specific days or were they random? Was the area posted, warning of dangerous dogs? Lots of questions. Time for depositions. Ka-ching.

 

[Roadtrip635]

You are not really paying attention to what I am saying. I am not saying she cannot lose or that Elliott will have to pay her as there are other defense strategies they can try.

What I am saying is that trespassing is not going to work in this case. Unless she broke in or had criminal intent, the court is not going to rule that she was trespassing.

That said, I cannot see how Elliott gets out of this without paying her something if she was indeed there to clean his pool.

It would probably work in this case because because of the dogs. Letting him know in advance was not just for a matter of convenience or courtesy, but for safety and not just her own but for the dogs or neighbors if the dogs were not secured prior to her arrival. She arrived without his knowledge or permission and ignored the safety concerns of entering the premises. The dogs live there, she does not. The dogs have to be secured while she is there performing her job, but should not be expected to be secured within their own home when she is not there.

She put herself at risk, she put the dogs at risk if they had escaped the yard due to her unannounced visit, and put others at risk if those dogs had escaped and hurt someone else.

 

[bud914]

You are not really paying attention to what I am saying. I am not saying she cannot lose or that Elliott will have to pay her as there are other defense strategies they can try.

What I am saying is that trespassing is not going to work in this case. Unless she broke in or had criminal intent, the court is not going to rule that she was trespassing.

That said, I cannot see how Elliott gets out of this without paying her something if she was indeed there to clean his pool.

sorry i am also no lawyer but i don't see your point...i have a cleaning service come once a month to clean my house BUT they are not allowed to just show up whenever they want and enter my property. They call and we agree on day and time...just because you hire someone doesn't give them carte blanche...IMO

 

[jazzcat22]

Weak defense

how so?

 

[jazzcat22]

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

Give her nothing until she proves otherwise.

 

[jazzcat22]

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.

Not really.
At every place I worked at you were not permitted to be on company premises during non working hours unless given permission, even verbally. It did not have to be written. If you were there without permission there could be consequences.

 

[Cowboys22]

Sounds like what I’ve been saying all day could be the case. She showed up unannounced at an unscheduled time and date and went in the backyard without checking for dogs. I’ve said numerous times that pool service people are notorious for this. They may tell you Tuesday and not show up. Then just come on Wednesday when you are at work and let themselves in the yard. If they don’t check for dogs first, they are negligent, not the homeowner.

 

[jazzcat22]

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.

no, just because you hire someone to do work at your house means they can just come and go at their will.

I hire someone to do my lawn and yard work. But I do not expect them to show up anytime they want to do it.

 

[Runwildboys]

no, just because you hire someone to do work at your house means they can just come and go at their will.

I hire someone to do my lawn and yard work. But I do not expect them to show up anytime they want to do it.

Are they scheduled for certain days, or do you decide each week what day they should come?

 

[Cowboys22]

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.

I don’t think that means Elliot is her employer. I think that means her employer, the pool company, has a policy that homeowners must be notified before you show up. Sounds to me like no one expected her to be there on that particular day and she carelessly went in the yard where dogs were present. That’s on her if true.

 

[jazzcat22]

Are they scheduled for certain days, or do you decide each week what day they should come?

they will usually ask me what day. Or if I need them to come at all or put it off a few days.
Sometimes will be just in the morning or afternoon, on a certain day we decide.