Chimp's Owner Won't Be Charged over Attack

(AP)  A Connecticut prosecutor says he does not plan to charge the owner of a chimpanzee that mauled and blinded a woman.

State's Attorney David Cohen said Monday that no charges are planned against Sandra Herold, of Stamford.

The 200-pound chimpanzee went berserk in February after Herold asked victim Charla Nash to help lure him back into her house. The chimp ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids.

Nash revealed her heavily disfigured face last month on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

Nash's family is suing Herold for $50 million and wants to sue the state for $150 million. Nash's family has said Herold was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control "a wild animal with violent propensities."

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

Herold's attorney 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.

Test results showed that Travis had the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in his system.

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 an open-records request show the state began receiving warnings immediately after that event.

[tjtimes2]

By what convoluted logic does this fall into the category of a workers' compensation claim ? Was the chimp owner the employer of the victim and was her assistance required in the course of her employment ? Sounds like a stretch. They might as well say the injuries were the result of the chimp running over her in a car and then filing a claim under an auto policy. Tragic story, but the lesson to be learned here is that if your friend asks for your assistance in rounding up an angry 200 pound chimp, you should probably tell her you are far too busy and refer her to animal control.

[babooph]

Had the owner been a man....

[porcine_aviator]

Shoot this coward of a prosecutor David Cohen. The guy must be a typical pol, just doing the job of prosecutor in order to move on to "better" things later.

Why in hell do the people of Connecticut tolerate this BS? I've never seen a more clear cut case of criminal negligence. You'd think all the rich people there would demand a criminal justice system that punishes the irresponsible and reckless. Very, very stupid situation.

[djseavy]

This is unbelievable. At the VERY least, there should be federal charges of dispensing a prescription drug to the chimp. It's difficult to say whether he would have attacked had he not had Xanax in his system, but it's illegal to give a drug to someone other than to whom it's prescribed. She's not a vet; how can she justify giving the chimp a mood-altering drug?

[mari1963]

This is ridiculous. This woman should never have owned this animal in the first place. Of course she is to blame! How does she sleep at night knowing what this animal did to her friend. What a crock!

[writer10]

Totally agree...she asked this poor gal to help rein him in, and now she's permanently disfigured, can not see, has to eat her meals through a straw and she claims no responsibility?? Dog owners are charged when the animals maul or even bite an individual yet she gets off scott free? What a truely disturbing article! At the very least, she should have to pay for her care!!!

[icjunior97]

They are sueing the state, because this chimp as bit and hurt other people. Not this bad, but enough where the state should have taken the chimp. If your dog bites a neighbor, the dog is going away.

The woman most likely doesnt have 50 million dollars. But she does own a dealership, rental properties etc.

[writer10]

exactly..if it were a dog, it would have been put down...both are at fault and I hope this poor gal wins against the state and the owner...and I hope there is some decent plastic surgeon who steps forward to help her feel better about herself...she may not be able to see, which I believe would be the absolute worst sense to lose, but she can still feel...

[newsterl]

Yeah if this was a dog the owner would be held for charges and sued- double standard here and as a dog owner I demand this prosecutor file charges.
No, she doesnt have anywhere near $50 million, and its certain when you see photos of the house she lived in that the "dealership" and rental properties are all maxed out on the loans/credit and she probably has very little equity. Sales of real estate is no good right now and wont be for years. Likely she only has a million dollar homeowners policy.

"Nash's family is suing Herold for $50 million and wants to sue the state for $150 million."

Everyone WANTS to sue the state for a windfall, but it aint gonna fly, especially $150 million.


"Herold's attorney 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. "

Well, if the woman was on the job when it happened and it was part of her job to be there, then its a workers comp claim. Wprkers comp like everything connected to the corporate mo fo's is always scaled to benefit the CORPORATION, not the victim, that is how they get away with letting workers fall off or get injured/killed by shoddy equipment, lousy work place conditions, toxic substances etc

[kimmie404]

Does Herold really have $50 million? Wouldn't that be along the lines of "blood out of a turnip"? The whole "sue" idea seems a bit ridiculous but...I'm certian given the devastation to this poor woman the family is trying to secure some sort of lifelong medical care funds.

I guess they consider the "state" guilty because they allowed Herold to have the "permit".

It's an unfortunate accident. Ms Nash was aware that a chimp was in the house and went over to help "chill it out". Hindsight is 20/20...a lot of people are mauled by dogs they swore would never harm a flea. Yes yes...I know wild animals can be dangerous but neither of the two women expected this to happen.

All we can do is hope Ms Nash gets on the list and funding for a face and hand transplant and pray it's successful.

[ikizdim]

"Nash's family is suing Herold for $50 million and wants to sue the state for $150 million."

What on earth did the state do?

[myeyedea]

The state allowed this woman to own a chimp as a domestic pet.

Personally, I think permissible domestic pets (i.e., pets allowed to live in homes purely as 'an addition to the family' reasons) should be limited to dogs and cats. Any other types of domesticated animals should be considered livestock and fall under the regulations set for that type of classification. All non-domesticated animals, including reptiles, tigers, bears, squirrels, raccoons, and any other thing that might make a hunters list should not be allowed to live in a home, no exceptions, no 'with proper permit qualifications', nada. Humans have a hard enough time controlling the two breeds of animals that have evolved with us, and caring for dogs and cats still isn't done to the best of human capability. Just because someone slaps a diaper on an animal doesn't make it tame, and the laws of this country need to reflect that humans don't have all of the world's creatures under its thumb just because our brains are bigger.

I say sue everyone within reach of allowing this completely unnecessary attack to happen - the animal control department, the state, the city, the owner, the supplier - anyone who would place a wild creature into domesticated human life to live as a pet needs to be held responsible for this. And if the courts can't get the laws changed, then hopefully this family will push their lawmakers to do it.

[porcine_aviator]

"What on earth did the state do?"

EXACTLY...they did NOTHING. If the state is going to do nothing about dangerous pets and their loony tune owners, then they don't need tax money to sit on their butts all day.