Chimp Attack Victim Seeks to Sue Conn.

Charla Nash Wants $150M in Damages for Failure to Prevent Attack

(AP)  The family of a Connecticut woman mauled and blinded by a chimpanzee sought Wednesday to sue the state for $150 million, saying officials failed to prevent the attack.

Attorneys for Charla Nash's family filed a notice Wednesday with the state Office of Claims Commissioner asking for permission to sue.

The 200-pound chimpanzee named Travis went berserk in February when his owner, Sandra Herold, asked Nash to help lure him back into her house in Stamford.

The animal ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids; she remains in stable condition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

A Department of Environmental Protection biologist warned state officials before the attack that Travis could seriously hurt someone if he felt threatened, noting that he was large and strong.

"We believe the evidence will show that the state, acting through the Department of Environmental Protection, failed to adequately address a serious public safety issue that resulted in tragic consequences for our client," said Matt Newman, attorney for Nash's family.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Wednesday that his office is reviewing the claim. He said that he is sympathetic over the "horrific tragedy" but that the planned lawsuit "seems unprecedented in size."

Dennis Schain, Environmental Protection spokesman, said his agency had not received any paperwork yet but would cooperate with the claims commissioner and attorney general.

The claim comes at a difficult time for Connecticut, where the two-year, $37.6 billion budget is already $624 million in deficit.

"There is a potential for a very significant exposure to the state, depending on how the facts are developed in the claims process," said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford.

Nash's family earlier 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."

Herold's attorney, who declined to comment on the new claim, has called the attack work-related and said her family's case should be treated like a workers' compensation claim. The strategy, if successful, would limit potential damages in the case and insulate the chimp owner from personal liability.

The animal, which was shot and killed by police, had also escaped in 2003 from his owner's car and led police on a chase for hours in downtown Stamford. No one was injured.

Records obtained by The Associated Press through a state open-records request show the state began receiving warnings immediately after that event.

"The DEP had information for at least five years that would have permitted that agency to have removed Travis from its residence," Nash's attorneys wrote in the new papers, noting the agency did prosecute the owner of a much smaller primate. "If the DEP had acted prudently, Charla Nash would not have been devastatingly injured."

Environmental protection officials have said that over the 13 years Travis was with Herold, the agency received only a few inquiries about Travis among thousands in general about possession of wild animals.

They said the memo from the biologist underscored the need for a clear, new law that would forbid ownership of potentially dangerous animals as pets and impose stiff penalties for those possessing them, and they blamed the failure to act on a communications problem and a lack of expertise in exotic animals at the agency.

Nash's family has a year from the date of the attack to file a claim with the claims commissioner office. The commissioner can recommend an award to the legislature or grant authorization to sue the state in court.

If the commissioner denies the request to seek damages from the state, the family could appeal to the legislature. Without its consent, the state cannot be held liable in a legal action for any damage or injury it may cause.

Police fatally shot the 14-year-old chimp when he tried to attack an officer responding to the assault on Nash on Feb. 16. Test results showed that Travis had the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in his system, but investigators don't know whether the drug played a role.

[SuperFish144]

Isnt it illegal to own animals like chimpanzees? Who sold it 2 her anyway? T think the thing thats absurd is that the owner of the chimp cared more for the chimpanzee than she did 4 her friend. I mean , how would SHE feel if she had to live the rest of HER life with no face?! I study animals and I belive that the owner is the most at fault.

[lfp190]

It seems like the owners home insurance should cover the financial problems. But I don't think the state should pay anything. Everyone NEEDS to start taking RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions and not blame everyone else. So many folks just do not weigh the pros and cons of any action but expect someone else to shoulder the blame. Her injuries are horrible and I feel for her but it was an error in judgment from the owner and herself.

[chrishazzoo]

I think it is horrible what happened to the Nash woman. I seem to remember Nash interacted with Travis in the past without negative results. It doesn't sound like the Nash woman nor the Herold woman called the state/authorities to report the missing Travis this time (probably because Herold knew Travis would get hurt in the process), they went to find him themselves. Herold is the only one who should get sued. She knew the possible outcomes in trying to capture the chimp, in the sense that she knew he could be aggressive/dangerous. She enlisted her friend (Nash) negligently, relying on the fact that Nash had only had positive dealings with Travis in the past. I don't own a chimp, nor know of anyone who does, however, I do know that adult chimps are unpredictable and can possess the strength of several adult humans. I would never "help" a friend find a beast that didn't want to be caught.

[tramplers]

I say we just put the lawyer (OK, all lawyers) in a cage with a chimp. Scumbqag lawyers. Let's see who we can get the most money from? The woman? Nah she doesn't have much. Hmm, insurance? Nope, this falls thru the cracks of insurance. Workmans comp? We couldn't get much. The state? Wow, we could say that they knew there was a .01% possibility that this could happen. OK, let's sue them. I can say it's for the womans suffering, nevermind the fact that I will get 40% of the settlement. The sad thing is the state will probably settle for millions. I feel sorry for the woman but no one knew that it was going to happen.

By this lawyers rational we should be able to sue the government for anyone that has ever been released from prison that commits another crime against you. Well the state knew that this person was capable of doing this, they should have protected me. I almost hate typing this, it may give them ideas.

It's almost at the point that anytime anyone gets into a wreck or gets hurt anywhere but their own home they can sue (and probably get some money). Common sense people. Accidents happen. Unforeseen things happen. If this chimp had a history of attacks, maybe. But I haven't seen anything that says that happened. I honestly believe that lawyers should be banned as a profession. You get convicted of a crime, YOU plead your case. You don't look for some loophole to get off. You get hurt, YOU plead your case. Let common sense decide who, if anyone, is responsible.

[hungry1968-17]

by BryanW217 November 5, 2009 10:59 AM EST

I feel sorry for the victim, but this is absurd. The state had nothing to do with it and I hope they fight back, rather than settle on this.







I disagree for ONE REASON: the state NEVER should have let her own a wild animal such as this in the first place.

A dog? Yes.

A cat? Yes.

Hamster? Yes.

Chimpanzee? Hell no!!

[gramto8]

by greennnnnn-2009 November 5, 2009 10:26 AM EST
I don't see how this could be a worker's comp case. It's not. Anyway, would they not need to prove that she was "on the clock" when this transpired? She wasn't. I don't see that they have a leg to stand on concerning worker's comp. This is lame. I feel terrible for the woman and her entire family.
___________________________________________

The way they can claim workers' compensation is because the injured lady worked for the owner of the animal. While that might not have been brought out in this article, it was mentioned in a previous article. Just letting you know.......

[greennnnnn-2009]

I don't see how this could be a worker's comp case. It's not. Anyway, would they not need to prove that she was "on the clock" when this transpired? She wasn't. I don't see that they have a leg to stand on concerning worker's comp. This is lame. I feel terrible for the woman and her entire family.

[anti-global3]

I actually felt sorry for this woman, but now I am hoping the family does not get one cent. It is not the governments responsibility to protect someone 24hrs a day.

[ToolMangler1]

You wouldn't say that if your next door neighbor owned a 200 pound monitor lizard, 600 lb lion/Tiger or 3000 lb African Elephant (wich they could if the state let them. It 'Is' the goverments duty to protect us in cases like that.
How about if your neighbor raised "Africanized Bees"????????


How about if it were "YOUR" wife that had her face and hands 'Ripped off' completely?????