Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 06:21 PM Mar 2014

Connecticut woman appeals for right to sue state for $150m over chimp attack

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/connecticut-woman-sue-state-chimp-attack

A woman mauled by a friend's chimpanzee in 2009 is expected to make a personal plea to Connecticut legislators, hoping they will allow her to sue the state for $150m in damages.

A spokeswoman said Charla Nash will appear Friday at a public hearing before the general assembly's judiciary committee.

The panel is considering a bill that would override the June decision by the state claims commissioner, who dismissed Nash's initial request for permission to sue. The state generally is immune from lawsuits, unless allowed by the claims commissioner.

Nash was blinded, lost both hands and underwent a face transplant following the attack. Her attorneys contend a state law gave the department of energy and environmental protection "unequivocal authority" to seize the chimpanzee, "whose existence threatened public health and safety."
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)
1. I feel so bad for her but do I have this right? She wants to sue because the state let her friend
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 07:23 PM
Mar 2014

keep the chimp? They didn't confiscate it so she wants to sue them? I remember when she was attacked but haven't followed the case since. Thanks.

ETA, I researched and found this, in 2003 incident part, looks like that is what she is doing. I need to read more before having an opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee)

Attacks[edit]

1996 incident[edit]
After the 2009 incident became an international news story, a woman who had lived in the same area as Travis claimed that in 1996 the chimpanzee had bitten her hand and tried to pull her into a vehicle as she greeted him. She claimed to have complained to the Herolds and to police.[17] The police have stated they have no records of any such complaint. [18]

2003 incident[edit]
In October 2003, Travis escaped from the Herolds' car and held up traffic at a busy intersection, and was free for several hours.[19] The incident began after a pedestrian threw something at the car that went through a partially open window and struck Travis while they were stopped at a traffic light. Startled, Travis unbuckled his seat belt, opened the car door and chased the man, but did not catch him. When police arrived, they lured the chimpanzee into the car several times only to have Travis let himself out of another door and occasionally chase the officers around the car.[10] The 2003 incident led to the passing of a Connecticut law prohibiting people from keeping primates weighing more than 50 pounds as pets and requiring owners of exotic pets to apply for a permit. The new law took effect in 2004, and as of Travis's death, no one in the state had applied to adopt a chimpanzee. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection did not enforce the law on the Herolds because they had owned 200-pound Travis for so long and because the DEP did not believe that Travis posed a public safety risk.[3][20]

2009 attack[edit]
On February 16, 2009, Travis attacked Sandra Herold's friend Charla Nash, age 55, inflicting devastating injuries to her face and limbs. Travis had left the house with Herold's car keys, and Nash came to help get the animal back in the house; upon seeing Nash, Travis immediately attacked her.[10] Travis was familiar with Nash, who had also worked at the Herolds' towing company, although Nash had a different hair style at the time of the attack.[21] The chimp had been taking medication for Lyme disease.[9] Herold, then 70 years old, attempted to stop Travis by hitting him with a shovel and stabbing him with a butcher knife. "For me to do something like that – put a knife in him – was like putting one in myself," Herold later said. The chimp turned around, she said, as if to say, "'Mom, what did you do?'"[9] The animal was angered more. Herold then called 9-1-1 and pleaded for help. Travis' screams can be heard in the background of the tape as Sandra pleads for police, who initially believed the call to be a hoax, until she started screaming, "He's eating her!"[16][22][23] Emergency medical services waited for police before approaching the house. Travis walked up to the police car when it arrived and tried to open a locked passenger door, instead smashing a side-view mirror. Then he went calmly around to the driver's-side door and opened it, at which point Officer Frank Chiafari shot him several times. Travis retreated to the house, where he was found dead next to his cage.[10]

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
2. I'm inclined to at least let her sue.
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 07:31 PM
Mar 2014

Just because she can sue, doesn't mean she'll win. She'll have to make her case in court before a judge, and maybe a jury, and show how the state fucked up, and would thus be liable.

Though I do feel bad for her - that chimp really mauled her.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
4. This case may have legs..there were instances where issues came up before the tragic
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 07:47 PM
Mar 2014

attack and the town was aware of the problems. I believe that is where her lawyers
may be going with liability.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
5. The town should have been aware of the problems, but so should the woman who was attacked
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 08:32 PM
Mar 2014

The town took no action because they believed that the chimp posed no risk, but the state could probably argue that the woman who was attacked didn't feel there was a risk as well, since she continued to be around the chimp.

I'm not a lawyer, but in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme court argued that the police have no duty to protect you. Could the same argument be made that animal control/the state has no duty to protect you. Under the law at the time the Chimp was grandfathered in.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
6. Yea, I do not suggest it would be easy. Yet the instances where there were issues
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 08:41 PM
Mar 2014

with the chimp and were documented..they may have a case. At some point, why
is the state immune to liability when they are presented evidence prior to the
attack that the animal was observed to have behavior issues.

I am not certain why states allow such pets, the very people in the state allowing
it probably know next to nothing about chimps.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Connecticut woman appeals...