Lawsuit of the Day: I thought that ‘Chompers’ Guy was joking.
Just so we’re all on the same page here, chimpanzees are wild animals that will react like wild animals when placed in a stressful and unfamiliar situation. A Connecticut woman was viciously mauled by a “pet” chimpanzee, and her family is now seeking damages from the chimp’s owner.
And I do mean “viciously”:
[Charla] 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. She is in critical condition at the Cleveland Clinic, which in December performed the first face transplant in the United States. Doctors haven’t said if Nash will be a candidate for such a procedure.
Predictably, the chimp was shot and killed on the spot, while the chimp’s owner survived the tragedy.
After the jump, more details from the lawsuit.
The suit alleges that the chimp’s owner, Sandra Heron, had also drugged the animal before the attack. From the AP:
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.”
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that a chimpanzee has “violent propensities.” At least, it’s not fair for a homo sapiens sapiens to be calling that particular kettle black.
But who the hell gives a chimp Xanax? What kind of sick, anthropomorphic crap is that? Somebody needs to get Tippi Hendren on the phone.
The victim’s family is understandably distraught.
“No amount of money can compensate my sister for the injuries she has suffered,” Michael Nash, the appointed conservator of his sister’s estate, said in an affidavit. “Nevertheless, it is my belief that probable cause exists that judgment will enter in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of at least $50 million.”
According to Sandra Heron, Travis the chimp was provoked into a homicidal rage by Guido Palau or something:
Herold had asked Nash to come to her home in Stamford on the day of the attack to help lure Travis back into her house. Herold has speculated that the chimp was trying to protect her and attacked Nash because she had changed her hairstyle, was driving a different car and was holding a stuffed toy in front of her face to get Travis’ attention.
Or maybe, Travis woke up one day and thought: “What. The Hell. Am I doing in freakin’ Connecticut?”
Good luck to the Nash family.
Family of Conn. chimp attack victim seeks $50M [Yahoo News]
(62) 
Comments
$50 million!? From who? Defendant's home owner's insurance policy probably has about $100K coverage. She'll tender the policy and that's it.
It's a terrible story and its absolutely heart-breaking...but this Michael guy doesn't know shit about lawsuits.
that sucks
Didn't this story run its course back when I fell off my dinosaur?
I wonder what the Vegas odds on having your eyelids ripped off by a chimp in Connecticut would be? Probably about the same as Latham recovering from their current fiasco.
Disgusting. How did this woman have a "pet" chimp in CT? Just disgraceful.
CHOMPERS is going after nervous T-101L next. CHOMPERS gunna get you!
First.
#2 = racist
1 is probably correct here
Geez. Must be a slow news day.
"No amount of money can compensate my sister for the injuries she has suffered," BUT I think around $50 million will do the trick....
"But who the hell gives a chimp Xanax? What kind of sick, anthropomorphic, crap is that? "
MysTTTal you moron, human medicines are given to animals all the time. I never give you shit about your atrocious spelling errors or other stupid mistakes a 4th grader could catch, but for crying out loud, do some fact checking before you make a post.
Who owns a Chimpanzee but no gun to shoot it when things go tits up?
The Apes of Wrath would have been a better title
I think the owner knifed it.
Probably an exclusion in the homeowner's policy for wild animals anyway...so potentially no coverage at all.
Where is Frat Stud when you need him?
Are guns legal in the Northeast???
I have Old Glory Robot insurance, but not Chimp Insurance - is this something I should look into?
- Feeble Old Woman
Am I the only one who was confused about who the hell Sandra Heron was, when the article kept mentioning Herold? Nice consistency. And CT is bad-ass....we like cock-fighting too.
It sounds like the perfect case for the caveman lawyer...
Why would you ever want to own a chimp. Aside from the whole "poo flinging" issues, those things are strong as hell. I'm talking retard strong. Rip-off-your-lips-and-eyelids-if-you-tease-it-with-a-stuffed-animal strong.
And "The Apes of Wrath" is a brilliant title for this story.
14 = very funny
Travis to 190!
I think the damages should be offset for inspiring a hilarious political cartoon regarding the bail out. Priceless.
13: Excellent point.
Elie, you're posting this stuff and still no post on Posner's vicious benchslap from last week?
way to give these c*ck-smokers an opportunity to make their hilarious comments at the expense of a lady who could die at any moment. stick to your groundbreaking coverage of Cardozo's exam schedule and leave stories such as this to be covered by legitimate news outlets where your wanna be witty ,pseudo-intellectual transplant readership cant chime in. Thanks.
that chimp went ape shit.
CAREFUL! Al Sharpton might sue you for using that photo...
@ 26
Learn to scroll you douche
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/judge_posner_says_expired_sala.php
holland and knight delayed start date- mid-january
At the risk of actually discussing the lawsuit -- the chimp had attacked people before. Hence the known "violent propensities." It was not making a blanket assumption about all chimps. Just a necessary showing with animals. Although wild animals don't get the "one bite" rule.
30, that link is to a story by someone named Kashmir. 26 was askng for a post from Elie.
No, CHOMPERS. No. Bad, bad, CHOMPERS. You put down that woman's eyelid right now!
Assumption of the risk, that is all.
@27
Sorry to hear you're on the rag. Please take some pamprin, put the keyboard down, and STFU.
kthxbai
I think that chimp played a white gorilla in Congo.
Still vicarious liability for keeping wild animals?
For the CT natives among the ATL faithful, the Stamford Advocate has had some fascinating posts since this attack occured. A lot of purported CT lawyers opine that Herold has no civil liability because CT has no vicious chimp statute, only a vicious dog one, and can at most be brought up on misdemeanor reckless endangerment charges.
Also, according to purported Stamford residents, Herold has at least 6 businesses and properties in the area, but no homeowner's insurance on her house. And the victim had no medical insurance, because her tow-truck company employer (uh, that would be Herold) didn't provide it.
And I'm sure all of this is accurate info, because hey, I read ATL, don't I?
17, guns are in fact legal in the northeast. I live in NY and I own several. It is however almost impossible to get a CCW permit.
Hey, can anyone come over and help me? My pet, a wild grizzly bear I have been keeping in my basement has gotten free and I need someone to lure him back in by holding this big steak. What, no takers?
@33
Great. Because I really want to read the same story again as told by every ATL writer. I'm personally waiting with bated breath for the Hope Winters version.
36,
if you quietly leave now and go back to the midwest, i promise you wont be harmed.
-27
Did the tow-truck company provide worker's compensation insurance? Were they too small to be required to? Was the woman even there on her employer's business. Interesting.
The idea that this woman would have no civil liability for keeping a vicious chimp in her home that injured someone else is ludicrous though. You don't need some fancy statute, ordinary negligence should do the trick I would think.
27/43,
What, no Pamprin? Just sip a Guinness and relax then.
-36
Criminal liability is of course another matter altogether. Perhaps some merit there
-45
This article is clearly racist. Please take it down.
Elie, your attempt at humor is in bad taste.
44, negligence doesn't do the trick in many cases. that is why we have vicious dog statutes in so many states. Negligence can fail because of the assumption of risk argument that has been brought up in these comments already. Many viscious animal statutes serve to negate the assumption of risk argument. Without those statutes to take away this defense it will probably work. This woman went over to this home in order to lure a chimp back inside. She knew what she was walking into and chose to do it anyway. But then again CT is generally pro-plaintiff. so who knows.
It's hilarious that you guys are discussing the causes of action the victim has...but you fail to recognize that they aren't going to get a cent from the defendant. She gets a $2 million dollar judgment and then what?
lol @ 28
Fuck you, Elie.
Do you really think that adding "Good luck to the Nash family" at the end makes it okay to say "Or maybe, Travis woke up one days and thought: "What. The Hell. Am I doing in freakin' Connecticut?"
This give me an Idea
#1 and 9 you are wrong. The owner here actually has 6 properties and equity ownership in a business.
And therefore, probably has at least a sizable independent net worth. Perhaps not $50 million, but likely more than $100K.
13 is English.
I have never understood why tits up is bad. Usually when I find something tits up she is about to blow me maybe make me breakfast in a few hours. It has never been a dead chimp.
I can't believe they killed the chimp :( how dare a monkey stop acting human...c'mon it was a wild animal, assuming that there might be risks is something even a child is capable of understanding. It was the victims own decision to come over, she wasn't forced, therefore the responsibility is her own.
58, you sound like an immigrant.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that a chimpanzee has "violent propensities."
It is alleged that this particular chimp has bitten two other people in the past. I'd say that's a "violent propensity."
"I can't believe they killed the chimp "
LOL...they should have just reasoned him, eh?
I haven't looked into CT specifically, but I don't think a "vicious chimp" statute is necessary. Usually domestic animals--like dogs--aren't vicious, so you have to prove negligence. With a "vicious" dog, the owner has strict liability. As I understand it, there's always strict liability with a wild animal, which I assume would include a chimp.