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

Reality

Reality

Staff member
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
69,593
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Irvin88_4life said:
You are incorrect. You can absolutely get trespassed whether it's your employer or not. Only way she can prove she was allowed to be there is a contract or something from Zeke saying so on that day, at that time.

Just because she worked for him, she can not show up when she wants to. Period. Saying otherwise is a wrong statement.

If Zeke didn't give her permission to be there at that time she won't get a penny.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am correct because I have dealt with that situation two different times and know for a fact.

She does not have to prove she was allowed to be there because 1) she was an employee and 2) she had access (either a key or access code).

Of course, if she broke in, that would justify trespassing.
 
Cowboys22

Cowboys22

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,507
Reaction score
11,384
Reality said:
If you gave her a key (or access code) to your house, it would be very difficult to get a trespass ruling.

Again, I think most people are not reading what I am posting. I am not saying it is "right" or that the woman did nothing wrong.

I am saying that "trespassing" is very difficult to prove if they work for you or "sometimes" have permission to your house.
Click to expand...

They don’t have to prove criminal trespassing for her to be at fault. It’s not like they are looking to press charges on her. I think Zeke’s lawyer used that word for the dramatic effect it would have. Bottom line is if she came on a different day and didn’t inform Zeke which she was required to do, then there is no negligence on Zeke’s part What is he supposed to? Lock his dogs away 24 hours a day because someone might show up unannounced?
 
Reality

Reality

Staff member
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
69,593
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Cowboys22 said:
They don’t have to prove criminal trespassing for her to be at fault. It’s not like they are looking to press charges on her. I think Zeke’s lawyer used that word for the dramatic effect it would have. Bottom line is if she came on a different day and didn’t inform Zeke which she was required to do, then there is no negligence on Zeke’s part What is he supposed to? Lock his dogs away 24 hours a day because someone might show up unannounced?
Click to expand...
You are arguing "what's right" not what the law is going to support.

From a "what's right" standpoint, I completely agree. The problem is that her lawyer labeled her an "employee" which is going to provide an extra layer of liability on Elliott as a result.

Otherwise, an employer of an employee who gets hurt while working at the employer's office, house, etc. could easily say, "They were not supposed to work that day so it's not my fault." whether true or not.

The law is going to be on her side in this case regardless of whether she followed the instructions perfectly. Not following instructions is grounds for termination, but until that formally happens or she commits a crime against her employer, there are labor protection laws that are going to side with her.
 
Corso

Corso

Offseason mode... sleepy time
Messages
34,627
Reaction score
62,860
Kaiser said:
Depends. If its the opening scene of the adult film you guys are making, its fine.
Click to expand...
I have a story about the first day I moved to Los Angeles (West Hollywood) involving something similar, but I'll PM it to you.
 
Hawkeye0202

Hawkeye0202

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,417
Reaction score
43,112
Cowboys22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap:Interesting since we've heard the OTHER side. It's odd to me how people can assume guilt hearing one side of an issue. As stated in another thread, for me, it's not about Zeke but fairness.
 
cern

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
Reality said:
You are arguing "what's right" not what the law is going to support.

From a "what's right" standpoint, I completely agree. The problem is that her lawyer labeled her an "employee" which is going to provide an extra layer of liability on Elliott as a result.

Otherwise, an employer of an employee who gets hurt while working at the employer's office, house, etc. could easily say, "They were not supposed to work that day so it's not my fault." whether true or not.

The law is going to be on her side in this case regardless of whether she followed the instructions perfectly. Not following instructions is grounds for termination, but until that formally happens or she commits a crime against her employer, there are labor protection laws that are going to side with her.
Click to expand...
Her options are to seek a settlement, civil trial, nlrb investigation, and even possibly workman's comp. I'm guessing a future settlement will be forthcoming.
 
cern

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
Hawkeye0202 said:
:clap::clap:Interesting since we've heard the OTHER side. It's odd to me how people can assume guilt hearing one side of an issue. As stated in another thread, for me, it's not about Zeke but fairness.
Click to expand...
Guilty before a trial is presumed, not assumed. The latter only requires common sense. The former is mandated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top