Jerry Jones accused of sexual assault

erod said:
Imagine the non-stop party buddy Jerry would have had if he drafted Johnny Football...

No wonder he's so "damn mad" about it.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a scary thought although I'm sure every strip club & bar would love it in Dallas.
 
Jerry isn't the only owner doing kinky stuff, I can assure you that. Donald Sterling and his mistresses, while his wife is well aware of his shenanigans. This is probably common practice. Here we have the owner of the Colts addicted to drugs and constantly embarrassing himself and putting others at danger because of his drunk driving.
 
I do want to say this after reading the papers...how is she suing the Cowboys as if they're a person? How can you sue a football team for not monitoring it's owner? The way it's worded seems to indicate that the Cowboys, a football team and not an actual person, should have placed monitoring and sanctions on it's own owner? So she's suing the owner of the Dallas Cowboys and the Dallas Cowboys themselves because they didn't monitor and protect women more against it's own owner?

Wouldn't the owner of the Cowboys be the one who would put such things in place? The reading of that all seems extremely stupid to me.
 
Where is Joe Francis when you need him?

He would make a ton just following Jerry around.

Forget the underage Girls Gone Wild.

Just follow the old dude.
 
Roger Goodell describes his role and the NFL's role as including, and I paraphrase, "making a difference in society" or something along those lines. In my opinion, the NFL was much better off when it stuck to what it really is.... A GAME. It is a business that markets and sells A GAME.

I am weary of a month of pink uniform attire (not weary of the cause at all.... it is a great cause)
Weary of them locking arms with ESPN to advance their social agendas
Weary of a thousand points of drama having nothing to do with the game of football
Weary of changing rules to the point that the game is beginning to barely resemble itself... it is literally turning into something more akin to basketball at times... that is, who has the last possession? Check in at the end of the 4th quarter and you see enough.

I'm an old guy now (51)... I get that. But I tell you, I love football today as much as I ever have, I watch a ton of it every year (so I'm not at all out of touch with the modern game), and I truly believe the product was much better in the mid to early 90's and going backward. My favorite era was the 70's.
 
BraveHeartFan said:
I do want to say this after reading the papers...how is she suing the Cowboys as if they're a person? How can you sue a football team for not monitoring it's owner? The way it's worded seems to indicate that the Cowboys, a football team and not an actual person, should have placed monitoring and sanctions on it's own owner? So she's suing the owner of the Dallas Cowboys and the Dallas Cowboys themselves because they didn't monitor and protect women more against it's own owner?

Wouldn't the owner of the Cowboys be the one who would put such things in place? The reading of that all seems extremely stupid to me.
Click to expand...

First, the Dallas Cowboys are a corporate person and can be sued like any other person.

Second, there are two theories of liability at play (from what I gleaned from the Complaint):

Vicariously Liability: The theory is that Jerry Jones was acting in his capacity as owner / employee of the Dallas Cowboys and the Cowboys are vicariously liable for his conduct.

Direct Liability: The other theory is that the Dallas Cowboys actively failed to report a crime and actively covered up the crime; fostered an environment of abuse toward women, etc.
 
rcaldw said:
Roger Goodell describes his role and the NFL's role as including, and I paraphrase, "making a difference in society" or something along those lines. In my opinion, the NFL was much better off when it stuck to what it really is.... A GAME. It is a business that markets and sells A GAME.

I am weary of a month of pink uniform attire (not weary of the cause at all.... it is a great cause)
Weary of them locking arms with ESPN to advance their social agendas
Weary of a thousand points of drama having nothing to do with the game of football
Weary of changing rules to the point that the game is beginning to barely resemble itself... it is literally turning into something more akin to basketball at times... that is, who has the last possession? Check in at the end of the 4th quarter and you see enough.

I'm an old guy now (51)... I get that. But I tell you, I love football today as much as I ever have, I watch a ton of it every year (so I'm not at all out of touch with the modern game), and I truly believe the product was much better in the mid to early 90's and going backward. My favorite era was the 70's.
Click to expand...


Good post. I agree.

Sports in this country have always played a role in shaping societal attitudes, etc.

That said, the NFL is not trying to do that at all. Instead, they actively associate themselves with popular causes (breast cancer awareness for example) to promote good public relations.

The only thing that matters to the NFL ownership cartel is revenue. The NFL's social engagements are nothing more than calculated public relations campaign to increase its popularity.
 
daveferr33 said:
Good post. I agree.

Sports in this country have always played a role in shaping societal attitudes, etc.

That said, the NFL is not trying to do that at all. Instead, they actively associate themselves with popular causes (breast cancer awareness for example) to promote good public relations.

The only thing that matters to the NFL ownership cartel is revenue. The NFL's social engagements are nothing more than calculated public relations campaign to increase its popularity.
Click to expand...

Spot on. If they were really interested in having a positive influence on society they would get rid of their thug element, regardless of talent. They have never done that, they will never do that, so just be honest about what you are. You are a business that markets and sells a game, including all of the stuff you sell associated with the game. And stop already with the flavor of the month in social causes that you want to present yourself as being friendly toward.
 
BoysFan4ever said:
She said she's the victim.

And what morals does Jerry actually possess? He is the man in those pics. The one with the blonde he is groping her chest. The one with the brunette kneeling...well who knows?

He was in his mid 60's when those were taken. A married granddad.

So about those morals again?
Click to expand...

morality is a fluid concept. Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't make it wrong.
 
daveferr33 said:
The allegations against the Cowboys are quite disturbing.

From the Complaint:

a. Supervising, assigning, and retaining JERRY JONES;
b. Failing to provide adequate monitoring of JERRY JONES;
c. Failing to institute and implement policies for the protection of females;
d. Failing to investigate allegations of inappropriate conduct;
e. Failing to report crimes against Plaintiff and others to law enforcement;
f. Tampering with criminal evidence;
g. Threatening victims and witnesses to deter criminal complaints;
h. Making decisions which reflected that the reputation of JERRY JONES and COWBOYS and the desire to avoid scandal were vastly superior and more important to the COWBOYS than the welfare of the Plaintiff and other victims who had been sexually abused by JERRY JONES;
i. Fostering an environment and culture where abuse of females could flourish and in which it was clearly understood that there was no accountability for such criminal acts toward females.
j. Failing to warn Plaintiff or the public of the dangerous sexual propensities of JERRY JONES toward females;
k. Retaining JERRY JONES in a position of trust, confidence and authority as president in direct contact with females when it knew or should have known of his dangerous sexual propensities.


The Jones Boys did not help matters with their party bus antics that were captured by TMZ. Perhaps exhibit 1 to the "fostering" claim.
Click to expand...

the claim against the Cowboys is bogus. He was not doing what he did as a Cowboys' owner, he was doing so as a private citizen.
 
daveferr33 said:
First, the Dallas Cowboys are a corporate person and can be sued like any other person.

Second, there are two theories of liability at play (from what I gleaned from the Complaint):

Vicariously Liability: The theory is that Jerry Jones was acting in his capacity as owner / employee of the Dallas Cowboys and the Cowboys are vicariously liable for his conduct.

Direct Liability: The other theory is that the Dallas Cowboys actively failed to report a crime and actively covered up the crime; fostered an environment of abuse toward women, etc.
Click to expand...

As in who though? Like are they claiming that it was Jones employees, like coaches or secretaries or something?
 
Just as a side note I see that she's listed as being from, and living in (I suppose) a town in Oklahoma just a little over an hour from where I live.
 
CanadianCowboysFan said:
the claim against the Cowboys is bogus. He was not doing what he did as a Cowboys' owner, he was doing so as a private citizen.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't.

Sitting here with only the complaint in hand, I have no idea if its bogus. I need more facts. Moreover, whether he was acting as an employee of the Cowboys doesn't address the allegations of direct liability toward the Cowboys--failing to report or actively covering up a crime.


As to whether Jones was acting as an employee, I think you may be correct. Although I am not sure of the analysis if Jerry Jones used his capacity as owner to lure the women or if any of the alleged conduct occurred on Cowboys premises.

Let me put it this way. I do know that Cowboys executives were recently spotted on the Cowboys tour bus partying with young girls procured at a Hollywood club. I believe that if an assault were to take place on that bus the Cowboys organization could be responsible. Jerry Jones admitted that the bus is used to entertain and that the Cowboys do a lot of "entertaining." That is a business activity of the Dallas Cowboys. And if assaults occur while the cowboys are entertaining then there might be liability.

Again, I don't know. These issues need research that I have not done.
 
BraveHeartFan said:
As in who though? Like are they claiming that it was Jones employees, like coaches or secretaries or something?
Click to expand...


No. They are claiming that Jones is an employee of the Cowboys (legally he is) and that the Cowboys are responsible for his conduct because his alleged conduct was done within the scope of his employment.

It looks like a hard claim to prove in this case--I would have to do the research, but not sure how an intentional tort like sexual assault is performed in the course of one's employment.

Here's a primer on the vicarious liability theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
 
daveferr33 said:
No. They are claiming that Jones is an employee of the Cowboys (legally he is) and that the Cowboys are responsible for his conduct because his alleged conduct was done within the scope of his employment.

It looks like a hard claim to prove in this case--I would have to do the research, but not sure how an intentional tort like sexual assault is performed in the course of one's employment.

Here's a primer on the vicarious liability theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
Click to expand...

I guess I'm confused because I don't see how the owner is the employee or how the company he owns can possibly be an sued as a person who is supposed to keep tabs on him. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
BraveHeartFan said:
I guess I'm confused because I don't see how the owner is the employee or how the company he owns can possibly be an sued as a person who is supposed to keep tabs on him. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Well, he's not just the owner (as we well know). He's the President, General Manager, etc.

Let me provide an example.

I own a bar. I am also a bartender at the bar. During the course of my duty as a bartender I recklessly over-serve someone who then goes out and kills someone (DUI). The victim then sues me and the bar for our negligence.

Its an old common law theory--if the servant is about the master's business, and the servant commits a tort, the master is liable because the servant is his agent. Its the Laws way of saying that the deep pocketed master does not get to shield himself from liability by simply employing an agent to do his business and commits a tort in the process.

Read the wiki article I referenced.

Where I think the plaintiffs case really breaks down is attempting to prove that sexual assault is in the course of employment.
 
daveferr33 said:
Well, he's not just the owner (as we well know). He's the President, General Manager, etc.

Let me provide an example.

I own a bar. I am also a bartender at the bar. During the course of my duty as a bartender I recklessly over serve someone who then goes out and kills someone (DUI). The victim then sues me and the bar for our negligence.

Its an old common law theory--if the servant is about the master's business, and the servant commits a tort, the master is liable because the servant is his agent.

Read the wiki article I referenced.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh....well that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time. I was completely confused there but then I don't know a whole lot about the legal stuff of the world. I try to avoid the need for all that junk. :)
 
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 4,893 (members: 169, guests: 4,724)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,206
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top