Chimp Owner Seeks to Limit Victim's Claim

Attorney for Conn. Chimp Owner that Mauled Woman Says Case Should be Treated Like Worker's Comp Claim

(AP)  An attorney representing the owner of a chimpanzee that mauled and blinded a woman is calling the attack a work-related incident and said her family's case should be treated like a workers' compensation claim.

The strategy, if successful, would severely limit potential damages in the case and insulate the chimp owner from personal liability.

The 200-pound chimpanzee named Travis went berserk in February when his owner, Sandra Herold, asked her friend and employee Charla Nash to help lure him back into her house in Stamford. The animal ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids, and she remains in stable condition at the Cleveland Clinic.

Nash's family filed a $50 million lawsuit against Herold, saying she was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control "a wild animal with violent propensities."

But Herold's attorney, Robert Golger, says in recent court papers that Nash was working as an employee of Herold's tow truck company, Desire Me Motors, at the time of the attack. He argues that Travis was an integral part of the business, saying his picture was on the wrecker, he appeared at the garage daily and he attended numerous promotional events.

The house where the attack occurred is a business office of the company, Golger said. Nash fed Travis, cleaned his play area and purchased his supplies as an employee, Golger contends.

"It's an unfortunate and tragic accident that happened in the workplace and should be subject to the provisions of the Connecticut workers' compensation statutes," Golger said Wednesday.

Matt Newman, attorney for Nash's family, said he disagrees with the argument but declined further comment.

Under workers' compensation, Nash would have her medical bills paid for by the employer's insurance and would receive partial wage replacement, but would not get any money for pain and suffering that makes up a large part of jury awards in civil cases. Workers typically receive 65 to 75 percent of their wages.

"It's a steady smaller income that would be enormously dwarfed by a successful civil suit," John Mastropietro, chairman of the Connecticut Workers Compensation Commission, said Wednesday.

Paul Slager, an attorney in Stamford not involved in the case, says Golger is making "a pretty creative argument."

To win the argument, Herold will need to prove there was an employer-employee relationship and that Nash's injuries were work-related.

Nathan Shafner, a workers' compensation attorney in Connecticut, called the tactic "a very sellable argument" and thinks it could prevail.

The strategy leaves Nash's side in a quandary because they only have one year to file a workers' compensation claim, Shafner said. If they fail to file that claim and lose the civil case, they could be left with no remedy, he said.

The 14-year-old chimp was shot and killed by police when he tried to attack a police officer responding to the assault on Nash. Test results showed that Travis had the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in his system at the time of the attack, but investigators don't know whether the drug played a role.

[gobears1028]

Can't really tell if the attorney has a viable argument from the story. The legal standard that must be met is whether the victim was within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the incident. I get the sense that he could very well prevail on the issue of whether she was within the course of her employment, but was it within the scope of employment? It's a real stretch to say that this chimp was an integral and necessary part of this tow business.

I know he's trying to save his insurance company client some money, but if the ruling goes in his favor, appeal it. The chimp victim should win on this one.

[toldyouso21]

LOL. Nice try you slimy lawyer. Given that a tow truck company does not routinely tow or care for animals, this is stupid and won't wash. Not only should this person be sued for the damage to this woman, but the tow truck company should appear in a separate lawsuit and investigation of the abuse of employees. No way should a worker for any business be reduced to performing personal duties for their boss unless that is routinely a part of such a company--that is right up there with a boss demanding a secretary wipe his butt after he takes a dump.

[joymotte]

A work related claim? I don't think so. This was a wild animal being raised as a pet. This should be illegal. Lawyers will do anything to get their client off; including blaming the victim. This young lady will go through more pain and suffering and more surgery. She will be out of work a long time; and therefor without an income.

I would ask for more than $50 million. That would include pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, loss of income, and punitive damages.

[wasrinrime]

Nobody has a right to own these types of animals unless you are a zoo, animal sancuary or professional trainer. This woman had no control over this animal and has less control over her ability to obviously feel responsible and compassion. She should have to pay whatver the victim is asking and shut her face! Workers Comp. has enough false irrelavent claims to deal with and this certaintly should not be one of them. This is not work related and this womans lawyer is an idiot!

[joymotte]

Well spoken. You can take an animal out of the wild, but can't take the wild out of the animal.

Maybe this lady's lawyer and her should feel the same pain the victim is facing and will probably face for the rest of her life. Every human on earth should show empathy and compassion.

[fabrat1]

That's a crappy way to treat a friend but at least her medical bills would be paid. From the sounds of it the medical bill alone would cost a small fortune.

[auniquecorn]

Not much of a friend if she does´nt support you the rest of your (her fault) misserably life.

[rwsmith29456]

I read the article carefully and say, 'Yeah, you can argue that'. But I don't think getting your face torn off by a wild chimp is a typical hazard of working in the office of a towing truck business. Keeping such an animal with known violent tendencies is irresponsible to say the least, much less letting it get loose and out of control. Sorry, but people are responsible for injuries done to others by their animals.

[credibility2]

The owner and her attorney should be fed to the crocs.

[rhs648]

There are very few sure things when it comes to a trial. This case could involve a huge number of possible variables and could take many different twists and turns.

Start with the law itself. The way in which the law is written and interpreted is important. Past legal precedent is also important. The judge and jury can follow a strict interpretation of the law or a liberal interpretation. In some cases, you have jury nullification where a jury refuses to convict in spite of the evidence presented.

Was the injured woman an employee? Was taking care of the animal part of her job? Was the woman injured because of her own carelessness? Was the injured woman simply helping out her friend instead of it being work related? Is there a history of the animal being violent? Was owning the animal in violation of local, state, or federal law? The list of questions that may be pertinent to this case go on and on.

When you hire a lawyer, you expect him to be knowledgeable, persuasive, and creative. Like a doctor, a lawyer has obligations to his client. As horrible as the injuries are, it appears that the lawyer is doing what he was hired to do.

[rwsmith29456]

This is bull. She asked her neighbor for help and she got attacked. I hope this strategy doesn't make it to the end of the runway, much less take off.

[ellensmithee]

I hope the lawyer who thought this creepy strategy up burns in H#ll.
This woman deserves everything she can get. Her good life is over. Now there's little left for her but pain and suffering.

[Former_Marine_Sgt]

Creative - but she would have had to be 'on the clock' to have this considered a workman's comp issue.

If she was off the clock and asked to come over as a friend to help recover the chimp - it ain't on the clock.

It doesn't matter that she was an employee if she wasn't officially on the job.

[th9876]

It just amazes me that any place anywhere would make it legal for individuals to own "exotic animals". What is it with people like this - are they insane or just plain stupid? Probably both. So much for that poor woman trying to help. I hope this legal maneuver does not work. The owner should be responsible.

[TyroneHoglegg]

The monkey had apparently been accidentally locked in the tow truck during a 2 hour segment of Rush Limbaugh. Even with Xanax in his system, he was so enraged when he got out, nothing could stop him.

[acninee8]

The damage done here is just so severe I hate to see her limited to meager worker's comp as remedy. Having had her hands ripped off, how is she supposed to find other work? Having had her face destroyed, she has suffered a social handicap. Payment of bills and a portion of former wages for what was probably a low paying job to begin with do not suffice. I wouldn't give her the moon, but I don't think the worker's comp route will make her whole.

[michellereducf]

Hate to admit it, but he does have an argument. But I sure hope the motion is defeated.

[bobnjersey]

[Hate to admit it, but he does have an argument. ]

no he doesn't. it's a tow truck company ... not a chimp boarding service. let him produce any other tow truck operation that involves the maintenance of a chimpanzee as part of the expected work responsibility.

if he wins with this argument ... it will once again reinforce the reality that the justice system has little to do with justice ... and is solely based on who can manipulate the process the best.

[6591Hou]

It'll never hold up. It's a weak attempt at best.
Busting a knuckle while changing a tire at a garage is a worker's comp case, having your face ripped off by the garage owner's pet chimp is not.

[gramto8]

BS!! This incident had nothing to do with the lady's job. If she wasn't hired as a caregiver for the animal, she should be allowed to sue, and I don't mean via Worker's Comp!