• Home
  • Blogs
  • Crimesider
Crimesider
November 12, 2009 11:27 AM

"Oprah Chimp Victim" Charla Nash Wants $50M, Chimp Owner Lawyers Call it Work Accident

Posted by Sammy Rose Saltzman
(CBS)
Photo: Charla Nash before the attack.

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) Attorneys for the owner of the chimp that violently attacked Charla Nash, disfiguring and blinding her, have argued that the incident should be treated as a workers' compensation claim, and nothing more.

PICTURES: Chimp Victim Charla Nash (Warning Graphic Images)

Nash's family has filed a $50 million lawsuit against Sandra Herold, her friend and former employer, who asked Nash to help lure the 200-pound chimpanzee, Travis, back into her Stamford, Conn. home on Feb. 16.

(ABC News)
Photo: Oprah Winfrey asks Charla Nash to remove her veil on the Nov. 11 episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
PICTURES: Chimp Victim Charla Nash (Warning Graphic Images)

That resulted in a brutal 12-minute attack in which Nash lost her eyes, nose and hands. Herold placed a horrifying 911 call in which she tells cops to bring guns because her chimpanzee was eating Nash.

The lawsuit states that Herold was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control "a wild animal with violent propensities."

"I always told her you have to get rid of him. He's going to hurt somebody someday. He's too dangerous," Nash said on Wednesday's episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show." "You can't control him, and he's going to hurt somebody."

Despite the fact that her chimpanzee has left Nash without eyes or hands and having to eat through a straw, Herold's attorney Robert Golger says her injuries are merely work-related.

"All of Sandy's hopes and prayers are with Charla and her daughter in this challenging time," a statement released by Golger read. "Sandy hopes and prays for a full and speedy recovery."

Nash worked for Herold's towing business, which Herold ran out of the same house where she kept her pet chimpanzee.

Nash says she feels she's "been thrown under a bus" since the attack occurred and legal proceedings began.

PICTURES: Chimp Victim Charla Nash (Warning Graphic Images)

MORE ON CRIMESIDER
November, 11, 2009 - Charla Nash Pictures After Attack: Eyes, Hands, Mouth Gone, But Will to Live Carries On
November, 11, 2009 - Oprah: Chimp Victim Charla Nash (Warning Graphic Pictures) Says She Doesn't Remember Attack
Tags:
charla nash ,
oprah ,
charla nash pictures after attack ,
lady face ripped off by monkey ,
oprah monkey ,
crimesider
Topics:
Daily Blotter
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From Crimesider

Add a Comment See all 23 Comments
by vibegeke November 17, 2009 6:22 PM EST
Are you kidding me? Work related, being half eaten by a big ape? Better settle this quick. No more excuses, please.
Reply to this comment
by SM212 November 16, 2009 10:11 PM EST
She knew the animal was loose, running wild and that the chimp could be dangerous.
Charla can't say now that while one day she was willing to go over to help her friend but now she thinks her friend was not able control the animal.
If she thought her friend couldn't control the chimp, she shouldn't have agreed to go to her house.
Reply to this comment
by SM212 November 16, 2009 10:00 PM EST
Please, we all have personal responsibility, If Charla Nash was so concerned about the animal being potentially violent, she should not have gone over to Sandra Herold's house.

My friend has a dog who is wild and I have seen it act erractically and snip at people. I don't go anywhere near the dog, and I only go to her house when she assures me the dog is locked up in another room.

We all assess risks and make choices, Charla's family can't say Sandra alone was negligent and reckless, it was negligent and reckless to go over to the house to 'help', even more senseless knowing the chimp was loose and running wild.

That is like a zoo keeper asking you to go into a lion's den to help lure a ferocious lion back into its cage and then you get blame the zoo when you choose to go in and get attacked. It's no different, Charla didn't have to go over to the house. And it certainly wasn't part of any employment, she choose to go there to help her friend.

Charla deserves sympathy but it is ocmpletely implausible that her friend alone is to blame, Charla shouldn't have gone over Sandra's house if she had even an ounce of fear or doubt about the animal.
Reply to this comment
by denvermorgan3000 November 15, 2009 5:03 AM EST
I think its terible these people should roll over take whats comming to them they had a vicious animal she was helping
them out it attacked and distroyed a woman now they need to stop dragging this though the court let this poor lady go on with her life i say 100 million stop tryin to hide behind workers comp
the nerve of these people
Reply to this comment
by TomJohnn November 14, 2009 10:21 PM EST
These fools should be reprimanded for their patronizing suggestion that the victim enjoy a "full & speedy recovery" when that is clearly impossible. Also for wasting the time of the court with their frivolous workers' comp claim.
Reply to this comment
by aznuggetbob November 14, 2009 7:39 PM EST
huida5 How blatantly obnoxious can you be? you throw in your spam here and then you the owner or employee admit that you posted it? I'll be sure to add your web address to my blocked list. LOL
Reply to this comment
by aznuggetbob November 15, 2009 1:48 AM EST
Thanks CBS for deleting the huida5 post, pure spam. TomJohnn I agree with you the defendants lawyer is patronizing the public. The chimp is a pet and has nothing to do with the business.
by aznuggetbob November 14, 2009 4:13 AM EST
How can they say it was a work related accident when the owner admitted giving the chimp psych drugs just before the attack????? I cant wait to see the lawyer explain it.
Reply to this comment
by retiredgustav November 14, 2009 11:33 AM EST
They are just trying to hide behind the workers comp laws. In most states that means you can not sue your employer in return they will pay for all of your medical bills.
by CompletelyFrustrated November 13, 2009 2:24 PM EST
Work related??? I did not realize that part of a towing company's work was keeping a Chimp as a pet?!?!

This lawyer is a complete and utter scumbag and so is Herold for not owning up to her own negligence!!
Reply to this comment
by Phxfire November 13, 2009 12:21 PM EST
There was another statement issued after Ms. Nash appeared on Oprah "...Sandy has always tried to help Charla and wishes her the best. When Charla lost her job, it was Sandy who provided her with employment and a place to live. Sandy hopes and prays for a full and speedy recovery." - Statement from Robert Golger Sandra Herold's Attorney
Sandy provided her with a job and a place to live..., what a self-serving, whining defensive comment. What? Is Charla supposed to be so grateful for a job that she shouldn't dare look for money to help her FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE? For some reason this comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Charla Nash has no hands or eyes (and is a choking risk), will require someone to take care of her 24/7, several more surgeries and other medical needs. With our great health care system (sic) this will be a catastrophic expense.
This is a justified lawsuit (many are not) and I hope she wins and wins big. (Since when is controlling a dangerous pet part of the drop description for working at a tow company?)
Reply to this comment
by element51 November 13, 2009 12:16 PM EST
"Full and speedy recovery".....Are you freekin kidding me! This woman can never be whole again and is certainly entitled to damages. If someone is walking up to my front door and falls and breaks their arm, I am liable...I have to pay damages. And we all love chimps. They are cute and we love to laugh at their antics. But they are wild animals and very dangerous. Years ago I was working crew on a McDonalds commercial where they were using two chimps. I saw for myself that at times chimps can be mean and they are very strong. And these were not 200 pound chimps. We love our pets and tend to attach human behaviour to them but they are ANIMALS and sometimes will behave badly. Animals react, they don't think about their actions. This poor woman was doing what she was asked to do by her employer and she paid a terrible price. Money can never restore her to the way she was but it could make her life a little easier. Give her a big cash settlement.
Reply to this comment
by rbichamp November 12, 2009 11:33 PM EST
Give her the $50 million!

If you are going to keep a wild animal in your house, you are responsible for it.

Just as if you had a pit bull and it killed someone, you are responsible!
Reply to this comment
by RedWings_ninety_one November 13, 2009 12:13 PM EST
I agree, but you also have to think, you aren't responsible if your kid murders, you can't control them either.
by element51 November 13, 2009 12:35 PM EST
RedWings....Why is it always pit bulls that are the villian? There are many other breeds of dogs that are capable of killing someone. I know you were just trying to make a point and I appreciate that but I am sick of people making it appear that pit bulls are the only breed that is dangerous. We have a giant American pit bull who weighs 120 pounds and is the sweetest, most loving dog I have ever had. I know many responsible people who are pit bull owners and their dogs are not a danger to anyone.
by RedWings_ninety_one November 13, 2009 12:39 PM EST
Pit Bulls are cool, but they're blamed for their aggressiveness. But that's why I like them.
by Phxfire November 13, 2009 3:04 PM EST
redwings: your comment isn't even apple and oranges. But to use your analogy, if your minor child murders you are responsible for paying for legal fees and your insurance could be dinged depending on the circumstances. You can also sue in civil court for negligence and wrongful death.
by xoxosos November 12, 2009 5:08 PM EST
Ms. Nash should not have felt obligated to assist Sandra Herold. However, Ms. Herold should never have asked Charla Nash for help. Rather, Ms. Herold should have called her local animal control department or the nearest zoo (or even the police). If she had any rational, common sense at all she would have made arrangements for emergency assistance with someone from one of those groups or a nearby vet long before this incident because she experienced a previous attack situation with this animal. She should have known, and probably did realize, that another attack would occur sometime. Sandra Herold was irresponsible by putting someone not capable of handling such a situation in needless peril and it is Sandra who must bear the burden of restitution for the disasterous result.
Reply to this comment
by uglyresult November 12, 2009 3:46 PM EST
> a statement released by Golger read.
> "Sandy hopes and prays for a full and speedy recovery."

Were this in any real way possible, this statement would not just
be a lawyer saying what he's supposed to say.

> Nash's family has filed a $50 million lawsuit against Sandra Herold

Were 50M able to repair Nash's injuries, this would be reasonable

The fair judgement (imo) is, to the extent that Herold and her
insurance can pay now and in the future, for Herold to fully assist
financially in the ongoing care and rehabilitative treatment to Nash,
for the sole benefit of Nash.

Ms. Nash, thankful you are not in physical pain. If any good has
come, a bit of it may be that many who had never known you before
this now send their very best thoughts to you each day.
Reply to this comment
by retiredgustav November 14, 2009 11:31 AM EST
Not in physical pain? What planet are you from. I don?t think $50 million is enough. This woman needs to be compensated for pain and suffering and another $50 Million for punitive damages. The reason being maybe people will think twice about having an exotic animal on their premises
by MPHgrad November 12, 2009 3:32 PM EST
Why would someone who thinks an animal is dangerous and may hurt someone go to the place where that animal is? I have an aunt whom I haven't visited in years because she has a vicious dog. I won't go visit her until the dog is deceased.
Reply to this comment
by Phxfire November 13, 2009 3:05 PM EST
her employer called in a panic. Its my understanding she went as a good samaritan to protect her employer/friend. It just wasn't a normal situation, she wasn't visiting.
by sdkady November 12, 2009 3:05 PM EST
What a brave lady! What an attitude towards a serious situation. God Bless her. I really think Oprah should step up to the plate and get her daughter a free-ride college education. Ity probably has something to do with the pending law suit.Howecver, it sure be nice to see Oprah do something like that.
Reply to this comment
See all 23 Comments

Crimesider Topics

Crimesider is the ultimate destination for true-crime fans: riveting crimes, exclusive 911 calls, police interrogations, expert forensics, and more. It's in our DNA. Now it's in yours.

BOOK 'EM

Book 'Em: Mommy's Little Girl -- Casey Anthony and her Daughter Caylee's Tragic Fate

Diane Fanning Goes Behind the Headlines to Provide a Heartbreaking Account of a Case That Shocked the Nation

Photos
Scroll Left Scroll Right