Government

Chimp Attack Victim Trying to Sue CT for $150 Million — But Should the State Be Held Responsible? (Poll)

HARTFORD, Conn. (TheBlaze/AP) — Warranted — or a case of misplaced anger? The state attorney general’s office argued the latter, as it is urged a key official on Friday to dismiss a $150 million claim filed by a woman who was mauled and disfigured by a chimpanzee that went berserk in 2009.

But the victim, who has amassed millions of dollars in medical and other bills, said she‘s holding out hope the claims commissioner will ultimately grant her permission to sue the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, which she holds responsible for not seizing the animal despite a state biologist’s warning it was dangerous.

“I hope and pray that the commissioner will give me my day in court,” Charla Nash told reporters following the hearing. “And I also pray that I hope this never happens to anyone else again. It is not nice.”

Charla Nash Suing Connecticut for $150 Million Over Chimp Attack

Charla Nash sits before a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Friday, Aug. 10, 2012. Nash who was mauled in a 2009 chimpanzee attack is attending a hearing to determine whether she may sue the state for $150 million in claimed damages. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

Nash, 57, was attacked in February 2009 by a friend’s 200-pound pet chimpanzee after its owner asked Nash to help lure it back into her house in Stamford, Conn. The animal, named Travis, ripped off Nash’s nose, lips, eyelids and hands before being shot to death by police.

Nash was blinded in the attack. She underwent a face and double hand transplant in 2011, but the hands failed to thrive because of complications and were removed. She said Friday she still hopes to get a double hand transplant.

Assistant Attorney General Maite Barainca told Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. that Nash deserves sympathy for her plight and admiration for the courage she has shown in handling it, but argued that the state should not be held liable for actions of the privately owned animal.

“There is no claim that the state directly caused Ms. Nash’s injuries. The state did not own or possess the chimp that attacked her” and played no role in letting the chimp loose that day in 2009 on private property, said Barainca.

Charles Willinger, Nash’s attorney, said his client lives in a nursing home outside Boston “in total darkness,“ ”without eyes, without hands.“ He said she is ”permanently scarred, emotionally, physically” and will never be able to see her daughter again or hold her hand. He said Nash “endures loneliness, despair and suffering beyond anyone’s comprehension in this room,“ and urged Vance to be the ”conscience of this state” when deciding whether to allow her to sue.

Charla Nash Suing Connecticut for $150 Million Over Chimp Attack

Charla Nash, right, talks with attorney Matthew D. Newman before for a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Friday, Aug. 10, 2012. Nash who was mauled in a 2009 chimpanzee attack is attending a hearing to determine whether she may sue the state for $150 million in claimed damages. Photo Credit: AP

Nash told described her feelings of loneliness to reporters.

“I miss home,” said Nash, who wore sunglasses and a turquoise top, and was accompanied by her brother Steve. “You know, when you’re in a facility, you’re alone. It’s hard. But I‘m thankful that I’m still here.”

Vance is expected to issue a decision on the state’s motion to dismiss the case within 30 days. If he rules in favor of the state, Nash cannot proceed with a hearing on the merits of her claim. She could, however, appeal to the General Assembly and ask state legislators to overrule the commissioner’s decision.

If, however, Vance denies the state’s motion to dismiss, a trial-like hearing will be held before him. Vance would then have to decide whether to allow Nash to sue the DEEP in superior court.

Willinger contends that Travis the chimp had been on the state agency’s radar since 2003, when it escaped from its owner and ran loose in Stamford. It was the only chimpanzee in the state and was commonly referred to as “the gorilla in Stamford.”

State officials have contended they did not have the authority to seize the animal.

Several months before the attack, a state biologist warned state officials in a memo that the chimpanzee could seriously hurt someone if it felt threatened, saying “it is an accident waiting to happen.”

In October 2008, the biologist warned that the chimpanzee had reached adult maturity and “is very large and tremendously strong.” The biologist said, “I am concerned that if he feels threatened or if someone enters his territory, he could seriously hurt someone.”

What do you think? Should Connecticut be held responsible for the actions of a privately-owned animal? Take the poll, below:


–

RELATED: 

Comments (108)

1 2 3
  • flatdaddio
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:34pm

    she was free to visit her friend, her friend was approved to own the beast, it’s the friend that should be sued, that’s it…all part of life….the good and the bad..

    Report Post »  
    • caveman74
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:29am

      I want to feel sorry for this lady because of the horrible tragedy she has suffered. But on the other hand what was she thinking. I’ll bet moments before the attack she thought her and her friend were so hip and in tune with nature because they could interact with this beast. I never even finished high school, but I am smart enough to know to stay away from any creature that has the capability of ripping my hands off my arms. If my dog mauls someone I am on the hook for the med. bills, my dog will be put down and I could even do some time (especially if the state has already warned me that my dog is a dangerous animal and I keep him in contact with people anyways)

      Report Post »  
    • lordjosh
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:52am

      First, if she is asking permission to sue then we have some implied facts that are important. Nash is operating as a “subject” of the United States Corp. under the 14th amendment and wants to try this case in commercial court. If she would sue in Law , she would not need permission.
      If the friend who possessed the chimp was a “subject” of the United States Corp. then she did not own the chimp. The government did and suing any one of it’s corporate branches from the town right on up to Washington would be suffice so long as they decide that she can sue them.

      Report Post » lordjosh  
    • Bluefish49
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 12:08pm

      Animals like chimps, big cats etc. belong in zoo’s…not your neighbors backyard. They like pit bulls cannot be trusted.

      Report Post »  
  • MCDAVE
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:33pm

    My sympathy to her, but the tax payers owe her nothing..Most wild animals can never be domesticated and you never know when they may turn on you..the animal was privately owned, her claim if any is against the owner.

    Report Post »  
    • spikebu
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 5:30am

      The state had absolutely nothing to do with it. I’ve got 5 Labs. Are my city and state responsible for them? Not in my lifetime. They are active members of my family. Caesar would call it a Pack. I say, same difference. Point is, I say no, they listen. They are way better than the kids. If they turned into fiends from hell, I’d be responsible. No one else. I have to check aggression in them daily. Aggression in a Lab is not correct. They are not aggressive. The truer statement is, I dominate to prevent chaos. Crap. Does that make me a dominatrix?!

      Report Post »  
    • spikebu
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 5:42am

      In the animal kingdom, you lead and never follow.

      Report Post »  
    • Silversmith
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 9:51am

      While I sympathize with your points of view MCDAVE and SPIKEBU, the question is “should she be allowed to sue?”. If the state has – as the article states – been made aware by an accredited source that there was an imminent danger posed by this animal, isn’t there a responsibility to take some kind of action? At least reach some kind of assessment? If nothing is done, doesn’t that imply a judgment of safety? I think that posing that question in court is reasonable. It’s what court is for right?

      Silversmith

      Report Post » Silversmith  
    • CulperGang
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:13am

      Ditto.

      Report Post » CulperGang  
    • charleyrocks
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:14am

      I do feel for this woman, she knew the chimp, but it is the owner who stupidly gave this beautiful animal zantax, the well known drug that makes human do stupid violent things while on it. Since our dna is close, what do you think it did to the chimp not the chimps fault. Or the states fault.

      Report Post » charleyrocks  
    • needawhitepresident
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 6:47pm

      I believe the state is at fault, because the state was warned by a trained state biologist that this animal was ‘an accident waiting to happen’. The state was warned not once but twice – the first time the animal escaped and ran through the streets of Stamford and the day the animal again escaped and attacked the woman. Yet the state took no action to take custody of a ‘dangerous animal’. The biologist knew just how dangerous this animal ‘could’ be, such as protecting its territory now that it was an adult. The question is should she be allowed to sue the state, and I say yes. Besides, she truly needs the money. This is not just a frivilous lawsuit. Ask yourself how you would put your shirt on without hands…

      Report Post »  
  • love the kids
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:24pm

    I.m not sure if the state should be held liable, but they have way more responsibility for this than Romney could possibly have for that womans cancer death.

    Report Post »  
  • Dumpster Baby
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:14pm

    LOL “she knew the chimp had a rebellious side”, sounds like the first sentence in “The Fifty Shades of Ape.”

    Report Post »  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:52pm

    …
    She knew the chimp had a rebellious side, but she still chose to visit her friend’s home, with a 200 pound chimp running loose.

    Did she ever tell her friend that she no longer felt comfortable coming to her home, with the chimp there, because a state biologist had already warned her friend that the chimp was dangerous?
    Did she ever tell her friend to just start meeting her at a different location?
    Did she ever sit down with her friend and suggest she turn the chimp over to authorities or a zoo?

    If I had a friend with a 200 pound chimp or even dog, I would never go to their home. Animals that are larger than humans, can turn deadly aggressive, without any warning.

    Report Post »  
    • MichaelN
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:09pm

      The state does not want the facts to be known. In the early 90′s Travis excaped and caused havic in CT.. The state tne made a law initiated by Travis to not allow exotic pets. Sandra applied for exemption and was denied. Yet the state did nothing. Sandra told everyone that she was exempt. Charla’s relationship with Sandra and Travis are not what people think. Charla insisted that Travis be locked in his cage before she was requested to come over. Charla was not an employee of Sandra’s. She was an independant worker. The state should protect the people knowing what they knew and legistslated to prevent. This could have happened to any person. What if this happened to your child and you found out that the state did nothing to prevent it.

      Report Post »  
    • TheBurningTruth
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:28pm

      MICHAELN: you‘re right that something doesn’t make sense. I mean, just Why would Travis the chimp initiate a law banning exotic pets, of which he was one? Your post is claiming that there are hidden facts and one of them is your assertion that Travis initiated (your word) the law. For me, that pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.

      Report Post » TheBurningTruth  
    • Mikev5
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:48pm

      MichaelN
      Your post makes no sense at all everything you said makes no sense if that was the case how did it happen and if that was the truth then the owner was responsible for lying about what was going on to her friend and lured her into a very dangerous situation that turned nasty.

      So STFU

      Report Post » Mikev5  
    • jespasinthru
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 10:38pm

      Most people don‘t keep exotic wild animals in their homes and treat them as though they’re human. Those women were asking for trouble.

      Report Post » jespasinthru  
    • karen_k
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 12:14pm

      I pity this woman and her suffering but, didn’t the friend call her because she was having trouble with the chimp (already out of the owner’s controll)? and, hadn’t she helped the friend previously with the chimp? so, wasn’t she in reality playing Russian Roulette? why did she think that she & her friend were sooo special? What happened to Jane Goodal? those who choose to ignor history are doomed to repeat it!

      Report Post »  
  • wbaranowski
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:51pm

    Da noive! They need to dump this frivolous lawsuit, pronto.

    Report Post »  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:36pm

    …
    Why didn’t she just ask the public to hold a fundraiser for her?
    We would much rather voluntarily donate to her cause, than have her just yank the money out of taxpayers’ hands, per court order.

    Report Post »  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:57pm

      The state has an agency that totally dropped the ball by not putting that animal in a zoo. The agency costs I’ll guess a near to a billion dollars a year to do their job. As always with any state agency they deny they have the authority to do anything. Every State and every State agency suck money out of the tax payers pocket and do nothing. You name it their is an agency. You need a license to do finger nails, their is some agency for that, get ripped off by a finger State Licensed professional, so what, the agency won’t do a darn thing but tell you to go somewhere else. All the agency do is collect money and avoid doing anything else. The State is responsible and no one else.

      Report Post »  
    • the_truth_or_not
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:20pm

      Lead,
      You forgot, under the obamgod, and socializm, it is not charity unless the money is forced form us and then handed over to who guberment wants to redistrute to. That is true charity, for us to donate money to her, would just be plain evil.

      Sorry for the sarcasm. Um no I am not.

      Report Post » the_truth_or_not  
  • dissentnow
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:35pm

    In acknowledging that the state knew that the animal was “dangerous”, she, herself, is acknowledging that she was aware that the animal was dangerous. She made a bad decision to associate with someone who was also making a bad decision ( owning a chimp ) and now she wants the taxpayers to foot her medical bills.

    Report Post »  
    • lisalake
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 4:34am

      In no way is the state responsible— but if she isn’t already on Medicaid…she will be any minute now… we will be footing the bill anyway.

      Report Post »  
  • Mikev5
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:35pm

    Sorry but it was her choice to do what she did no one forced her to do what she did a very poor choice was made. I would never of tried to lure a full grown chip to do anything without a big gun in my hand for protection they are known to be very dangerous animals.

    If I was asked I would have said hell NO call the police or animal control.

    Get real she made a poor choice

    Report Post » Mikev5  
    • Mikev5
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:48pm

      These things have twice the strength of an Olympic weight lifter and fast with teeth like razors

      Report Post » Mikev5  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:34pm

    …
    This woman’s friend who owned the chimp, is the one and only person responsible.
    Her friend asked her to help lure the 200 pound chimp back into the house.
    Her friend put her in harm’s way.
    Her friend should be sued, not the taxpayers.

    The chimp must have chewed up her brain as well. What an idiot.
    I have always sympathized with this woman. I‘ve prayed for this woman’s healing.
    I was so happy when she received the face transplant.
    Now, I’m just disappointed and ashamed of her.

    Report Post »  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 9:22am

      Yes I agree, but these words put the state in jeopardy.
      (Several months before the attack, a state biologist warned state officials in a memo that the chimpanzee could seriously hurt someone if it felt threatened, saying “it is an accident waiting to happen.)

      The state failed to act when one of their own said there was a problem.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
    • Pokerjoe
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:57am

      If the state had took her chimp. She would be on every station saying,he was my best friend,I love him,he loves me, he never did anything wrong and now the state took him away from me. Then all we would here is how bad the state is by not letting this dumb woman have her beast. No money for her from of the tax payer.

      Report Post »  
  • SubHuman
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:33pm

    The damning part is that her friend asked to help catch the chimp and she agreed. She chose to be in a dangerous situation. No way she should get a single dime of taxpayer money. Two rules to live by folks: Never take part in chimp wrangling. And if someone asks if you’re a God, say yes!

    Report Post » SubHuman  
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:32pm

    Silly. The chimp was legally owned (unbelievable), the owner was negligent, and sadly, this woman used extremely poor judgment in exposing herself to the risk that this WILD animal obviously posed. It is a great tragedy, but Connecticut is certain not to blame.

    Report Post » Tri-ox  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:29pm

    Was he related to the one in Miami that ate the homeless guys face off ? Outlaw bath salts…..

    Report Post »  
  • seeker9
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:23pm

    Chimps are like Dem lawmakers. Say any thing like “cut spending” and observe the reaction! The lesson: stay away from chimps (and Dem party).

    Report Post » seeker9  
  • TJexcite
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:20pm

    This is why you can’t have a lemonade stand. So the city or state does not get sued when someone gets sick because of food poisoning. You can’t have a (fill in the blank) because the state might get sued if thing go wrong, and in this case things went wrong in a big way

    Until there is Tort Reform so people can not sue over hot coffee and make millions there will be a state making sure they are protected from being sue for everything that goes wrong no matter how small.

    Report Post » TJexcite  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:41pm

      And remember, most lawyers are huge democrats……they have a common industry:::VICTIMHOOD:::

      Report Post »  
    • Wango
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 11:34am

      DETROITBOY . . . Most lawyers are huge democrats. Wow. I had no idea. Fascinating fact. Please provide your source for that information. It is highly valuable in our godly fight against the Neo-Nordic Crypto Fascist Islamosexuals. But we must verify it before we can deploy it.

      Report Post » Wango  
  • Bobaz
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:16pm

    Don’t think the state should be responsible, but the county in which the attack occurred is another story. If county officials knew about the deranged monkey, then the county should pay.

    Report Post »  
    • kindling
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:24pm

      But the county doesn’t have enough money. She should have known that the ape was dangerous herself. It should be between her and the apes owner.

      Report Post » kindling  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:32pm

      Wrong. The friend owned the monkey. The friend failed to keep control of the monkey. The friend used her to lure the monkey back inside. The friend is the responsible party. 100%. It is a terrible thing that happened to her, but the only culpable party is the owner.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • CulperGang
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 10:21am

      NO taxpayer aka “county” should pay. Thank-you. Nash could have stayed out of the house and away. She put herself in this situation: Her and her friend who owned the animal. Arrogant people who think they can “overlord” animals that are TENX more physically powerful against these puny humans. LET THIS BE A LESSON TO ALL HUMANS. You are a puny puke compared to the “wild” creatures of God. Leave them alone. Leave them where God put them.

      Report Post » CulperGang  
    • LICENSEDTOCARRY
      Posted on August 11, 2012 at 3:44pm

      There is no county government in Connecticut. We don’t pay taxes to Fairfield County or elect officials to govern it . There is no county police force or county school district.

      Report Post »  
  • Mandors
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:16pm

    She knew her crazy friend had this improper animal. Sorry but too bad. The medical bill argument is bogus, it’s called chapter 13 bankruptcy. Move on, next.

    Report Post » Mandors  
  • bdandsl
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:14pm

    Why doesn‘t the ’friend’ get sued, it was her chimp? Why didn’t the friend club the da mn chimp to death before it caused such injuries? Sue the friend that owned the chimp. Why should the taxpayers been held acccountable? Oh, right her friend doesn’t have millions of $$$$$$ so stick it to the taxpayers!

    Report Post » bdandsl  
  • Optimist4now
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:11pm

    The chimpanzee paid the ultimate price, this “victim’s case” should ultimately be the responsibility of her friend that was housing the exotic ape. It should not be the responsibility of the state.

    Report Post »  
  • beckyspatflaveredstew
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:11pm

    NO, the state is not responsible for her freewill choice to visit the home, she was fully aware that a chimp resided there.

    Report Post »  
  • DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:11pm

    I voted no. Connecticut should not be held responsible for this tragedy. I do pray for her and may God fill her heart with forgiveness.

    Report Post » DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:11pm

    Sue your fried there lady oh wait she doesn’t have the deep pockets that explains it.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:10pm

    The state is ran by a bunch of monkeys, and at the State Assembly, they do throw a lot of poo. I believe they looked the other way because of one of their own was being persecuted. These apes need to be brought to justice, but then again, during the attack she did use a derogatory phrase…”Get your hands off me you damn Dirty Ape.“ The Apes think of this as using the ”N’ word, so I think she may have an uphill battle sueing the apes that run Conn. She may have a better chance sueing the Pigs that run Washington DC. Just don’t mention Pork or Bacon.

    mmmmmm. Bacon.

    Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:09pm

    Another chimp on bath salts ? Good grief.

    Report Post »  
  • MikeyMike1171
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:08pm

    I feel bad but … She did to choose a friend that has a 200lb Chimp .. one that if i remember the story right she had sleep in bed with her like a person . Anyone i hang with now gets a pet chimp I’m steering clear of them

    Report Post » MikeyMike1171  
    • JACKTHETOAD
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 8:15am

      Dear God. You might’ve hit the nail on the head. (The poor victim. God Bless her whatever she does.) Chimps don‘t attack until they’re sexually mature.The owner slept with him (ugh). The State of Ct. allowed this! Waaayyy too ‘liberal’ for me. Whack those sick bastids where it hurts. Right in their wallets. (…boy, do I ever hope I’m wrong…)

      Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
    • JACKTHETOAD
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 8:41am

      Kielbasi daqurii anybody?

      Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
  • MCDAVE
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:35pm

    LOL Isn’t that the truth

    Report Post »  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:39pm

    I am ashamed of myself for laughing at that joke.
    But, funny is funny…………..

    Report Post » Rational Man  
  • db321
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 10:08pm

    I too had a moment of self indulgence. Nope, it’s going on longer than a moment. Now my stomach is starting to hurt. Ok, I cant stop laughing.

    Report Post » db321  
  • marine249
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 11:11pm

    me too

    Report Post »  
  • Halloween
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 11:30pm

    Why would you not feel alright laughing at that joke? Are you that politically correct that a funny joke is not to be laughed at? Hypocrites.

    Report Post » Halloween  
  • cashe
    Posted on August 11, 2012 at 2:27am

    And they say Tea Party folks are racist…

    Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love