Family of Conn. chimp attack victim seeks $50M

[bella-day]

I heard an interview with the brother of Charla Nash, the lady who was attacked by the chimp earlier this year. They have filed a major suit.

On top of all the physical injuries this poor woman has suffered...she is stuck with brain damage. The injuries she sustained are life altering. There's a good possibility that she will never be able to live a completely independent life again.

Something else I found very interesting is the fact that Sandra Herold has not darkened the door of Charla's hospital room to even check on her progress or lack thereof. I'm sure that she is staying away because her attorney advised her to do so but one would think that she would show some concern for the woman she once called friend.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_us/chimpanzee_attack_lawsuit)

STAMFORD, Conn. – The family of a woman mauled by a chimpanzee filed a lawsuit seeking $50 million in damages against the primate's owner, saying she was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control "a wild animal with violent propensities."
Attorneys for Charla Nash, who remains in critical condition, filed the lawsuit against Sandra Herold late Monday in Superior Court in Stamford.
The suit also alleges that Herold had given the chimp medication that further upset the animal. Herold has made conflicting public statements about whether she gave Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, to Travis on the day of the attack. The drug had not been prescribed for the animal, police said.
Herold knew the 200-pound chimp, Travis, was agitated when she asked Nash to come to her house on Feb. 16, the lawsuit said. The suit accuses Herold of negligence and recklessness for owning "a wild animal with violent propensities, even though she lacked sufficient skill, strength and/or experience to subdue the chimpanzee when necessary."
"Our client, Charla Nash, has suffered and will continue to suffer agony and pain beyond our comprehension," attorney Charles Willinger said at a news conference in Bridgeport. "This is a tragedy ... that should not have happened."
Herold's attorney, Joseph Gerardi, declined to comment Tuesday.
Nash, 55, lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids in the 12-minute mauling. Many bones in her face were crushed, and the attack may also have left her blind and brain damaged.

The final few statements in the quoted article leads me to believe this case will be over quickly...

Two other people have said that Travis bit them, in 1996 and 1998. A former animal control officer has said that she warned Herold after a 2003 escape that the pet's behavior was worrisome and she needed to keep it under control.
April Truitt, who runs the Primate Rescue Center in Kentucky, has said she warned Herold of the dangers of keeping the animal in her home. She said she pleaded with Herold to consider placing the chimp in a sanctuary, but Herold was not interested, saying: "You don't know my Travis."

What a self serving idiot this woman is...she was warned by someone who works with chimps of the dangers of keeping such an animal in her home.

She ignored the advice and now her "friend" gets to pay the price for her stupidity.

The commentator I heard talking about the case said he felt the amount being demanded is outrageous. I do not agree with that statement. The chimp had already bitten 2 people in the past and she was dosing the chimp with Xanax which was not even prescribed to the chimp.

This case brings up a question.

While I'm all for freedom...I do wonder if we have not come to a point in time that the ownership of very dangerous pets should not be regulated.

We read stories about people being attacked by pythons, pythons and boas breeding in the Everglades because twits think they are either so cute (how the hell you could think that about a snake is beyond me), and then their cuteness wears off when they get big enough to down Fido so the twits release them into the wild so everyone gets to deal with them.

Now this...

Why should anyone be given the right to own an animal that pose a danger from which they are unable to protect others?

Any comments?

[CID_0687]

I think their should be regulations on the type of animals people can have as pets, including certain breeds of dogs.

Being in the insurance industry for the past few years I've come to understand this. There's a reason that a couple of the questions on a home insurance application ask "What breed of dog do you own?" and "Do you own any exotic animals?" Some animals should remain in the wild, they can't be tamed...no matter how much training you give them.

Most of your major insurance companies won't give you a policy if you have certain types of animals...or, they'll write a policy with no Liability coverage, because statistics show they'll be paying a claim.

I would not be opposed to the government taking a look at these statistics that insurance companies use and outlawing certain animals...People can be ****ed about it all they want...But, if it keeps people from being injured or killed that's what matters. And, in the case of wild animals it's better for them to be in their own environment anyway.

[bella-day]

I think their should be regulations on the type of animals people can have as pets, including certain breeds of dogs.

Being in the insurance industry for the past few years I've come to understand this. There's a reason that a couple of the questions on a home insurance application ask "What breed of dog do you own?" and "Do you own any exotic animals?" Some animals should remain in the wild, they can't be tamed...no matter how much training you give them.

Most of your major insurance companies won't give you a policy if you have certain types of animals...or, they'll write a policy with no Liability coverage, because statistics show they'll be paying a claim.

I would not be opposed to the government taking a look at these statistics that insurance companies use and outlawing certain animals...People can be ****ed about it all they want...But, if it keeps people from being injured or killed that's what matters. And, in the case of wild animals it's better for them to be in their own environment anyway.

I do not blame the insurance companies for taking that position. Why should they be willing to take such a risk?

I ran up on an article just a few weeks ago about a 23' boa escaping from its enclosure in a neighborhood in southern CA. Luckily, the snake was located before it was able to harm anyone or anything for that matter.

The owner was not charged with a thing. There's no leash laws for huge snakes in CA or any other state for that matter.

While I realize it would be impossible to leash a snake it does seem to me there should be some legislation that would require the owner keep the snake confined at all times. Other families in that neighborhood should not have to concern themselves with finding a 23' boa in their backyard.

People are stupid enough to own chimps, lions, tigers, and other animals that do pose a serious danger not only to their owners but others in the community as well.

In my opinion, they should be required to at least register the dangerous animal and sign a legal document saying they alone will be responsible for any and all damage that the creature may cause to another.

A law requiring such may cause the people to stop and think before they buy an alligator, chimp, lion...etc.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/666621/california_exotic_animal_laws.html?cat=17

The site above is a not so exhaustive explanation of exotic animal's that are either restricted or only allowed by permit. As I read, I got the feeling this pertains mostly to Wild Life Preserves, Zoo's and Breeder Programs that keep these exotics....but....it also reads as though a private citizen with the proper permit and environmentally secure facility could also keep an exotic animal.

I'm all for freedoms and rights of our nations people...but after this vicious attack, I believe it is time to re-look at who is keeping what type of animal at their home. Shouldn't there be some sort of vetting process to ensure the saftey of the surrounding community? Shouldn't there be some sort of 'license' that must be be acquired by an owner to prove out they understand the necessary care and needs of the animal before they get the animal? How difficult could it be right?

50 million...for what this woman survived and the type of care she will need for the remainder of what's left of her life...seems on par. Will she get it? I highly doubt it. The woman with the chimp had no insurance..and has little to her name in assets. I had heard the victims brother comment on the financial bareness of the situation. I believe a donation site has been set up to help defray medical care costs.

Sad situation all the way around. I pray the victim can come through this with some semblance of the life she had previous to the attack. As for the owner of the Chimp who attacked...criminal negligence charges should be filed against her.

~Mysty

[bella-day]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/666621/california_exotic_animal_laws.html?cat=17

The site above is a not so exhaustive explanation of exotic animal's that are either restricted or only allowed by permit. As I read, I got the feeling this pertains mostly to Wild Life Preserves, Zoo's and Breeder Programs that keep these exotics....but....it also reads as though a private citizen with the proper permit and environmentally secure facility could also keep an exotic animal.

I'm all for freedoms and rights of our nations people...but after this vicious attack, I believe it is time to re-look at who is keeping what type of animal at their home. Shouldn't there be some sort of vetting process to ensure the saftey of the surrounding community? Shouldn't there be some sort of 'license' that must be be acquired by an owner to prove out they understand the necessary care and needs of the animal before they get the animal? How difficult could it be right?

50 million...for what this woman survived and the type of care she will need for the remainder of what's left of her life...seems on par. Will she get it? I highly doubt it. The woman with the chimp had no insurance..and has little to her name in assets. I had heard the victims brother comment on the financial bareness of the situation. I believe a donation site has been set up to help defray medical care costs.

Sad situation all the way around. I pray the victim can come through this with some semblance of the life she had previous to the attack. As for the owner of the Chimp who attacked...criminal negligence charges should be filed against her.

~Mysty


You make some good points.

I find it curious that we are required to register guns. There are also laws that require a waiting period before taking possession of guns we have legally purchased.

Guns do not have a history of breaking away from their owners and going on a killing spree.

Yet you or I could buy an animal whose species does have a known history of doing great bodily harm to humans and there is no registration or waiting period involved with the purchase.

Something seems wrong about that...

[KYCutlassGuy]

And to think, if someone had given that woman an Eharmony account to begin with, this whole ugly business would never have happened.

"Curious George" seems like such an innocent story, they never tell you about what really happens when he gets home.

[CID_0687]

You make some good points.

I find it curious that we are required to register guns. There are also laws that require a waiting period before taking possession of guns we have legally purchased.

Guns do not have a history of breaking away from their owners and going on a killing spree.

Yet you or I could buy an animal whose species does have a known history of doing great bodily harm to humans and there is no registration or waiting period involved with the purchase.

Something seems wrong about that...
I'm not a fan of Big Gubmint...but personally I don't even feel a permit is enough...the animal can still get out, it can still harm people.

Why does someone need an animal like that for a pet? There's a reason that God created dogs and cats...of course as I posted earlier I believe some breeds of dogs should be outlawed as well.

I was attacked by two pit bulls once, I was able to get away with just a rip in the leg of my pants, and then the owner of these animals threatens to press charges on me...all I was doing was my job...taking photos of a house I was insuring, the people I sold the policy to hadn't moved in yet and the previous owners still had their dogs there...No lock on the gate, no "Beware of Dog" signs...nothing of the sort...When I checked the backyard and whistled there were no signs of the dogs, but when I opened the gate and stepped through they came out from under the porch.

So anyway, the guy threatened to press charges for me letting his dogs out...I told him to go ahead and press charges, but there was no lock, no sign...He said I shouldn't have been on his property, which legally wasn't his property since two days prior...I shut him down when I asked him if he would be having this conversation with the next door neighbor after their 5 year old opened the gate.

He goes on to make excuses, "My dogs haven't ever hurt anyone..." A few minutes later, "But I won't let my kids be around them." :wall:

That's the mentality that many of these owners of aggressive and wild animals have...Their "pet" is more important than other people's safety.

[bella-day]

I'm not a fan of Big Gubmint...but personally I don't even feel a permit is enough...the animal can still get out, it can still harm people.

Why does someone need an animal like that for a pet? There's a reason that God created dogs and cats...of course as I posted earlier I believe some breeds of dogs should be outlawed as well.

I was attacked by two pit bulls once, I was able to get away with just a rip in the leg of my pants, and then the owner of these animals threatens to press charges on me...all I was doing was my job...taking photos of a house I was insuring, the people I sold the policy to hadn't moved in yet and the previous owners still had their dogs there...No lock on the gate, no "Beware of Dog" signs...nothing of the sort...When I checked the backyard and whistled there were no signs of the dogs, but when I opened the gate and stepped through they came out from under the porch.

So anyway, the guy threatened to press charges for me letting his dogs out...I told him to go ahead and press charges, but there was no lock, no sign...He said I shouldn't have been on his property, which legally wasn't his property since two days prior...I shut him down when I asked him if he would be having this conversation with the next door neighbor after their 5 year old opened the gate.

He goes on to make excuses, "My dogs haven't ever hurt anyone..." A few minutes later, "But I won't let my kids be around them." :wall:

That's the mentality that many of these owners of aggressive and wild animals have...Their "pet" is more important than other people's safety.

I agree with you on all points.

We have neighbors that live behind us that own a total of 6 pit bulls at the moment. One of the dogs is particularly aggressive.

He has mauled puppies that he has sired with the other dogs in the yard...he has that look of a dog bred for the fight. Extremely close cropped ears and this dog is so muscular you would think he's been fed steroids.

Anyway...he gets out. Oh they have him behind a fence and on a chain no less. He's known for snapping chains and the 4' feet poses no problem for him at all.

When he gets out, we call the police. The police officers even make comments that it's obvious that these are fighting dogs but until they catch them fighting them there's nothing that can be done beyond calling animal control when the dog gets out.

What's really strange is every time we call the police...two teenagers mysteriously show up to retrieve the dog before animal control can get here.

This has happened 3 times now. The last time, the officer who came here to handle the situation made the statement that these people must have a police scanner. The timing of the kids showing up to retrieve the dog is just too much coincidence for anything else to make sense.

The dog is going to hurt someone one day. But the police can do nothing until someone is hurt or they catch them fighting the dogs.

Stupid situation to say the least...

Back to exotic animals. There is no amount of money that will repair this poor woman's life.

IMHO, people should not be allowed to own tigers, lions, chimps, alligators, poisonous snakes, snakes that grow big enough to pose a danger to humans and pets...the list goes on and on.

Heck, I can't own chickens in the city limits of my hometown...but I can own a wolf.

What's wrong with that picture?

[CID_0687]

I agree with you on all points.

We have neighbors that live behind us that own a total of 6 pit bulls at the moment. One of the dogs is particularly aggressive.

He has mauled puppies that he has sired with the other dogs in the yard...he has that look of a dog bred for the fight. Extremely close cropped ears and this dog is so muscular you would think he's been fed steroids.

Anyway...he gets out. Oh they have him behind a fence and on a chain no less. He's known for snapping chains and the 4' feet poses no problem for him at all.

When he gets out, we call the police. The police officers even make comments that it's obvious that these are fighting dogs but until they catch them fighting them there's nothing that can be done beyond calling animal control when the dog gets out.

What's really strange is every time we call the police...two teenagers mysteriously show up to retrieve the dog before animal control can get here.

This has happened 3 times now. The last time, the officer who came here to handle the situation made the statement that these people must have a police scanner. The timing of the kids showing up to retrieve the dog is just too much coincidence for anything else to make sense.

The dog is going to hurt someone one day. But the police can do nothing until someone is hurt or they catch them fighting the dogs.

Stupid situation to say the least...

Back to exotic animals. There is no amount of money that will repair this poor woman's life.

IMHO, people should not be allowed to own tigers, lions, chimps, alligators, poisonous snakes, snakes that grow big enough to pose a danger to humans and pets...the list goes on and on.

Heck, I can't own chickens in the city limits of my hometown...but I can own a wolf.

What's wrong with that picture?
My apologies for the sidebar...But, you're right Bella...it makes no sense that livestock isn't allowed in the city limits but a chimp or wolf is perfectly acceptable. At least with chickens the only complaint from the neighbors might be the smell.

I would even think that some tree hugging libby animal rights activists would agree with us that these types of animals should not be kept as pets...they should be in there own environment, in the wild, where they belong.

[KYCutlassGuy]

I think the big concern over chickens is when people keep roosters. The girls are fine and don't really smell, they're death on lawn grass though. As for the pitbull argument, the only thing I've seen the ones I've had go after was smaller animals. Fantastic family dogs if they aren't trained to fight. An enterprising person would be hunting those pythons in florida for the skins, I'd say they're worth some money.

[CID_0687]

I think the big concern over chickens is when people keep roosters. The girls are fine and don't really smell, they're death on lawn grass though. As for the pitbull argument, the only thing I've seen the ones I've had go after was smaller animals. Fantastic family dogs if they aren't trained to fight. An enterprising person would be hunting those pythons in florida for the skins, I'd say they're worth some money.
How 'bout lions and tigers and bears?

[bella-day]

My apologies for the sidebar...But, you're right Bella...it makes no sense that livestock isn't allowed in the city limits but a chimp or wolf is perfectly acceptable. At least with chickens the only complaint from the neighbors might be the smell.

I would even think that some tree hugging libby animal rights activists would agree with us that these types of animals should not be kept as pets...they should be in there own environment, in the wild, where they belong.

No problem with the side bar. Far more people are disfigured and/or killed by pit bulls every year in this country than are killed and/or disfigured by chimps, lions, and so forth.

So the two subjects do tend to merge well.