They sue the state in hopes of getting more money as they know they likely will not get millions out of a single person. The woman with the chimp should have had liability insurance. I agree the state, and the taxpayers, should not be sued for this.

GHS,

Agreed. Spread it around, see what sticks. I feel sorry for this woman, especially that she survived. It's not about living, it's about quality of life. If it were me I'd hope someone would put a bullet through my head.

Her family is looking for a payday.

The owner should pay up and pay dearly, but this woman knew this chimp was dangerous. How about a little responsibility for her actions?

Yeah, sue the owner for $50 million. Like that is ever going to happen. That lady doesn't have money like that.

The state should hold some responsibility in this. If they knew about the animal they should have removed it immediately. All exotics should be removed or there should be huge consequences for the owners and the state.

These animals are not pets and should never be kept at homes in residential areas. Only properly run zoo facilities.

The State bears some of the responsibility for sure. All States should tighten up wild animals being owned by home owners. I say yes to sanctuaries. People in Florida buy pythons and keep them until they are huge and dangerous then let them go in the everglades. It is a huge problem and Florida better something fast. All the wild life natural to the everglades are disappearing.

This woman deserves money from the State and the home owner. She will need all the help she can get. Home owners should not be allowed to keep tigers, lions etc, but they do. Connecticut was warned and did nothing. We aew not talking about dogs and cats here.

She should sue herself for $1 trillion for thinking that helping someone "lure their chimp back inside" sounded like a good idea.

Yea what happened is awful, but it was her own decision. Do you need the state or ANYONE to tell you that a chimp can rip your limbs off it wants too?

Those of you who feel the State bears no responsibility read post #26. I think she deserves a lot of money, but no where near 150 million.

This chimp is more dangerous than my guns, Did the owner have a background check?

If I agree to assist a friend and I am injured in the process, I personally find it immoral to sue them for compensation. My point is, the fact that she went over to help handle the Chimp suggest that she did not think the Chimp would have acted the way he did. It would seem then that it was just a tragic event.

Thus, is it moral to sue a close friend over an accident, regardless of the severity of the accident. If the answer is yes, then "with friends like that who need enemies." Perhaps as a society we need to revisit the true concept of "friend" and "friendship."

roger 1.8

What if she had been mauled by pit bulls or rotweillers?

Are you suggesting the State would somehow be responsible for that too?

Unless Ms. Nash, and this is severely doubtful, has given mankind the theory of relativity by Einstein, the theory of Black Holes as from Hawkins, or the theory of gravity by Newton, her worth is substantially less than her claim.

Morale: Don't play with chimps, CHUMP..........................

$ 150 million? I feel for her, but all that this would be during is hurting the individuals who live in that state, no, throw that out. I can see a 10 million dollar claim, maybe more, not 15 times that. She may have been mauled by a chimp, but it doesn't excuse greed.

what fault was the state?

the woman was told not to keep the animal so it's the owners fault!

It's her fault for thinking she could tame that chimp, and it's also partly the state's fault for allowing her to keep the animal. The state had been warned that the animal could hurt someone, and they didn't listen, so the state is partly at fault and they should pay compesation to this woman and her family for what happened to her. In addition, if that animal had gotten into a heavily populated area and attacked a child or elderly person, the state would have an even bigger lawsuit on their hands.

My point is, the fact that she went over to help handle the Chimp suggest that she did not think the Chimp would have acted the way he did.

The chimp had also been on drugs, a medication to treat lime disease normally used to treat humans, around the time he went beserk and attacked her, in addition the woman also gave him wine to drink as well during the time he lived with her.

If I agree to assist a friend and I am injured in the process, I personally find it immoral to sue them for compensation.

Write us when you get your face and hands ripped off by a chimpanzee, like this woman did. The therapy and medical care she's going to need to get through this is going to cost a lot of money. Her friend should pay for her therapy and medical care, because she was irresponsible in keeping a 200 lb chimp in her house and she was irresponsible for giving him alcohol and drugs.

Auter: Given my definition of "friendship" a law suit would and should not be necessary; a true "friend"would have taken responsibility and voluntarily cover her medical expenses. That is what "friendship" is all about. The problem is that many members of society cannot seem to differentiate between "friends" and simply "people we know". "True friendship" appears to be a lost concept.

a true "friend"would have taken responsibility and voluntarily cover her medical expenses.

True friend or not, she should still pay for her therapy and medical care.

Why does someone want to keep a 200 lb chimp in a residential neigborhood in the first place. The STATE knew about the danger and failed to take action. Let them pay. Although these people were "friends" it doesn't matter, the victim has lost her face and sight.

Girl child's suin' e'rbody left and right. Suing the owner. Suing the state. Next, she'll be suing the European Union, the Vatican, the United Arab Emirates...

Sucks that she got mauled, and I feel for her. I truly do. But, honey, there're limits.

On the other hand, I think the owner of the chimp's quite a nasty little c**t, herself. She's decided to claim that the mauling victim was an employee, and that she was on the clock when she got mauled, so she's only entitled to worker's compensation. This will shield the owner from personal liability, and will leave the victim with only a fraction of her original income. She shouldn't just be sued. She should be severely flogged to boot.

$150 million for being a dumba**...hey my car has no brakes, stand in front of it so it stops....hold your hand out and see if my chainsaw is sharp....make a decision, live with a decision...it's called personal responibility and she has none !!

Bloody hell I hate stupid sue happy people.

If I was the state I would counter-sue.

This will be very good for our LAWYERS again. They will get most of the money from it anyhow. She will get very little.

Yes sad she got hurt. But it is time people take responsability for their own actions.

Lawsuit denied

The state should have never allowed this animal to be aq house pet, yes they bear responsibility, the owner should lose everything for thinking a wild animal is a domestic pet such as a cat or a dog.

Now find out who the responsible state employees were who ok'd this woman to own a wild animal and fire them for their incompetence.

just my .02

The second the state says that you can't keep a chimp, or spider or other such pet, then the whiners come out in force about their "rights" to do whatever, whenever and with whomever they want. Don't play with monkeys, people!

The moral is: don't Monkey around, Sue the deep pocket

Don't play with monkeys, people!

Chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes don't have tails.

The problem is she was there before and knew about the pet chimp, its tragic yes but I don't think the state should be held at fault, just seems like a bunch of greedy relatives that probably didn't care about her until now, the smell of money and they all come running ......

Actually, the local police and state animal regulatory agencies were aware of this animal being illegally kept in a residence. I do not think 150 million is reasonable but there is some culpability on the part of local and state agencies.

Curios Blond, the state maybe sued because if the state gave the owner permission to keep this animal, it may be culpable of negligence especially when the state biologist warned the particular agency that gave the owner permission to keep the animal that it was dangerious and could hurt someone.

Based on the article it appears that the state was aware that the animal was being kept at the property and allowed it. I am sure those of you that think the government should not be envolved in people's lifes think it is ok to keep all and any type of animals in residential areas. Yea, keep the government out of people's life and let them do what they want. The state should have required the lady to maintain a large liability insurance if you wanted to keep such an animal in her home. The government has some responsibility of protecting the population from people that have no sense.

the "victim" took the friend up on the offer to help lure the chimp back in - Therefore she gave up the right to sue anyone but her friend. She's just trying to blame others & needs to grow up & accept responsibility for her own actions. Only in America can one screw up their own life & try to get rich by suing someone else. GREED GREED GREED is all this pitiful attempt is about.

Somehow, I don't think you should call the woman greedy. I doubt she has the slightest idea there even is a law suit. Her brother has power-of-attorney and guardianship of her. You are also very cold and unfeeling. This woman lost her hands, most of her face and is blind. How great do you think her life is going to be even if she gets the money? Have a heart. The owner of the chimp is the one who should be responsible and is doing her level best to make sure that her assets aren't attached by the courts. She should be ashamed of herself. This was her friend and her chimp.

The owner of the chimp is the one who should be responsible and is doing her level best to make sure that her assets aren't attached by the courts. She should be ashamed of herself. This was her friend and her chimp.

Belinda: I agree. That is why we should be very careful of who we call friends. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we tend to take the concept of "friend" and "friendship" to loosely. The victim was a true friend that is why she went over to help lure the chimp back in the house. Unfortunately, the owner was not a friend, for had she been a true friend a law suit would not have been necessary. She would have been doing everything within her power to assist the victim. The number of friends I have I can count on one hand. And trust me, I will do anything, including selling my house, for any of them. That is why I chose my friends very carefully. Simply knowing a person does not make them a friend of mine.

just seems like a bunch of greedy relatives that probably didn't care about her until now

Yeah, it's really greedy to want to pay for your relative's therapy and medical care.

They come from Connecticut

Line their pockets? Do you have any idea what it COSTS to have this kind of care? This woman will never have a normal life. She will never be able to work and will need all kinds of rehab, prosthetics and home renovations PLUS years of intensive therapy for the trauma. Boog a loo, grow a heart and PRAY nothing like this never happens to YOU. She also DESERVES damages for the irresponsible behavior of both the apes owner and the state. BTW the word is spelled " Leech"...You show both meaness and ignorance.

The counsel provided by the lawyers. Remember they get a solid percentage of everything that the plantiff is awarded. So if they get 200 million, the lawyers will be sitting pretty. So it's the lawyers driving the size of the damages being sought. The judge should throw this out as a load of crap and fine the lawyer and the woman for bringing a frivilous lawsuit. Damages should be limited tocost of medical care for the rest of her life - preferrably pay her medical insuranc for the rest of her life. Period.

Where do all of these greedy leaches come from?

Our wombs

re to : "boog a loo 22.

Straight from Law school !!!

Where do all these greedy leaches come from?

First off I think Ms. Nash has every right to sue the homeowner and the state. Employees of the state were fully aware that the homeowner was keeping a chimp at her home. And they were well aware that he had previously escaped the confines of that home and although he did not injure anyone during those times, the potential was there.

Chimps are wild animals. They belong in the wild or in a zoo or sanctuary that is run by knowledgeable, trained individuals. They do not belong in homes with people who allow them to wear clothing, sit at the table to eat food meant for human consumption or ride around in cars while they accompany these humans. The state was aware of all of this and allowed this to continue.

I can't even imagine what kind of pain Ms. Nash has suffered and will continue to suffer. I can't even imagine what her life must be like now. She was a vibrant young woman. Now she lives in the hospital. I can't even imagine the cost of her treatment.

I doubt any of you can either.

Ridiculous lawsuits started with that hot coffee spilled in the lap of a motorist years ago. Coupled with greedy lawyers and an increasing belief in unaccountability and state dependence, this deplorable practice continues. Heck, ol' Travis has roots in Africa, so maybe the Nash family oughta sue the entire continent of Africa.

the "coffee" suit was not ridiculous. the poor little old GRANDMA lady, who was being helpful to hold the coffee, received SERIOUS BURNS. the coffee was scalding TOO HOT!

boog a loo - you hit the nail on the head!! GREED - wait...isn't that one one the deadly sins? So you misspelled a word - OMG, let's crucify you.......People who can't accept self responsibility need to ride the Waahambulance out of here & get a life. Seriously though, thank you for your post - keep posting the obvious!!

The problem with leveling a lawsuit against the state, though, is that ultimately it will come out of innocent taxpayer's pockets.  People like yourself who had nothing to do with this situation or the negligence demonstrated will  be the ones to foot the $150 mil when all is said and done. 

Regardless, I suspect there will an out-of-court settlement here.  Most of these "lawsuits" are filed to provide a cautionary tale and light the fire under legislators to enact laws or more strictly enforce existing laws that will prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.  Only a small percentage of monies sought in these kinds of cases actually ever get paid out.

Sorry, but the State is us. When irresponsible voters elect irresponsible people to take care of State's business, those people, and those voters, should damn sure pay the consequences of failure to act responsibly.

There are no 'innocent taxpayers' in this situation.

Agreed Dubiously - if you all don't like this fact then get out there and change the laws. These exotics should not be kept as pets. Petition to get laws against having dangerous animals at home in residential areas. Then there will be no reasons for "innocent tax payers" to help out in more of these horrible situations.

Great comments! Good ideas!

However, I'll bet most folks will still vote for the hair...

I smashed my thumb with a hammer. Do you think I could sue Stanley Tools for making a dangerous object, and the State of California for allowing such dangerous objects to be sold in this state.

No. My dumb ass should be more careful.

Wild Chimp on the loose? Don't call animal control let me corral that sucker by myself. What a no-face fool.

I smashed my thumb with a hammer. Do you think I could sue Stanley Tools for making a dangerous object, and the State of California for allowing such dangerous objects to be sold in this state.

That's not something to joke about or be sarcastic about. Smashing your thumb with a hammer is nothing compared to the nightmare Nash had to endure.

The owner of the ape, the state that allowed her to keep an ape AND the victim all share some responsibility. However, the victim was acting as a good samaritan who certainly did not foresee the outcome. She now has to live in this mutilated state for the rest of her life, affecting her family as well. She has paid dearly for her mistake already.

The owner and the state should be held liable and the lawsuits should be settled in a manner that awards the victim enough money for her care and to allow her family to return to some semblance of normality in their lives also.

The suit should also compel the state to change the laws regarding the housing of wild animals to prevent such an outcome in the future.

The chimp owner did NOT foresee the outcome either! It's unfortunate this lady is left in this condition for the rest of her life, BUT does one expect the state to look after all of us as tho we were children? If one is tragically injured in a car accident, is the state at fault? After all, driver's license and car license are both purchased from a state agency. An ambitious lawyer sees BIG bucks$$$ with this lawsuit! Of course, they sue for much more money than is ever received. I can hear the protests now if states prohibit exotic animals as pets. Their "rights" are being violated.

The reason to sue the State is deep pockets, and the fact that they will settle because it will be cheaper for them to settle than to go through a trial. She should be sued for a frivolous suit.

I feel sorry for her predicament, but it was her friend who owned the chimp, sheknew it for years, and went on her own to help her. Bad things happen to good people.

I say let big brother watch over you & take away anything they deem potentially unsafe, then you won't be able to post anymore from your bubble as your computer being an electrical appliance has the ability to have an electrical problem & hurt you...BUT you'll be safe, but what happens when you trip & fall in your own house - who are you going to sue - ohhhhh thats right, that's what house insurance is for....right?

The authorities knew about this dangerous chimp. It WAS there responsibility.

Sue the damn lawyers! Take every nickel they have or ever hope to have for filing such a meritless law suit.

wrong

Would you like to expand? Wrong the earth is round? Wrong the monkey was a chimp?..... ?

It is the fault of the victim....SHE decided to comply with the request...YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID...no amount of money will make her life easier or make her look better. GREED knows no limits and her family does not have her interests at heart.

I agree. If I had a friend who was stupid enough to keep a lion/chimp/snake (etc) as a pet and she asked me to help her get it back in its cage, I'd tell her to call Animal Welfare. There is NO WAY I would go over there and risk getting chewed up. The owner is an idiot, the "victim" is an idiot and the state is third on the list for letting her keep a potentially dangerous animal. Does anyone THINK anymore?

I can't honestly say I wouldn't go. She was familiar with the chimp although somewhat fearful of it. If a friend asked me, I would probably do it not really thinking of possible consequences.

How is this the 'fault of the state'? Perhaps you weren't privy to accounts of this tragedy appearing in print shortly after it happened; those accounts listed more than one occasion when the State's Animal Control dept. was called to intervene in the matter of the woman keeping a dangerous animal as a pet.

One such call came from the owner, herself, when she was having problems making the chimp behave. Nothing was done by the State above telling her that she should consider giving the animal to a zoo, and the maiming of an innocent woman is the result. So, yes, the State is also responsible for damages.

Yes they are at fault! She won't get anywhere near that amount, but they have to try. Tragic story for sure.

but they have to try

WHAT!!!!?!?!. What makes her tragic mishap worth $ 150 million from the rest of the state. The state does have some culpability, but not $ 150 million worth, not even close.

No she won't anywhere close to figure that her lawyers are seeking, but I see this time and again in lawsuits.

Just who are these people that deny the room for tort reform?

I still disagree. The state had no right to force the owner to get rid of the chimp - common sense sahouldl have played a role. the other lady should have steered clear of this woman and he freaky pet.

At some point we have to take responsibilty for oursleves and stop asking everyone else to give us soemthign becuase we are, for lack of a better term, stupid.

I say divide that by 10 and you got a more reasonable number.

EXACTLY!!! When asked a intelligent person says NO WAY!!!! when asked to help control a wild, dangerous, powerful, abused, crazed animal. Sorry she was hurt but you can't fix stupid!

Thank you for a sane, and heartfelt, inquiry and comment. We need more people like you in the world.

Blessings on your household!

Amen Tony. I've watched this story from day one. She probably doesn't even know her family is doing this suing. I truly do feel sorry for her, but it was her choice to go help a friend with an unruly pet.

I wonder if he would be so willing to try and sue the state for that much if he was limited to say, $ 200,000.

According to recent research (as in about a month ago), pit bulls are actually more friendly and human acceptant than golden retrievers. Do your research before you start spouting off garbage against an animal that is not overly aggressive, unless taught and allowed to act that way. I don't own one, but have done plenty of research, and they are exceptional animals. If I wasn't allergic, I wouldn't think twice about owning one.

Chimps, ok, they are 200 lbs...and wild animals. They should be left in the wild.

Show me a case, even one, in which a child or elderly person was maimed or killed by a Golden Retriever. I don't care what some stupid "study" led by PETA idiots says. The statistics are plain about which breeds are the deadliest, and it isn't Golden Retrievers or any other sporting breed or hound! Pit bulls were bred for one purpose--fighting. They have no purpose in the modern world, except to guard drugs for inner city gang bangers.

Thank you, Alaskan1983 for defending Pit Bulls. I am sick and tired of people accusing the breed. It's the owner, Jerk! Not the dog!

One word for Pit Bulls, EXTINCTION.

The ignorance on Pits in these comments is disgusting.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

Here oompa Loompa, this sounds pretty maimed to me.

http://www.tristate-media.com/drr/news/local_news/article_1a7edf8c-8b7e-50ef-9efb-12ec97b3bcd0.html

Thank you LisaV-

Unfortunately this thread is FULL of ignorant people. I'd say that 75% of our country is full of these loser idiots.

How DARE anyone say Pit Bulls are bad. I have a Rottweiler, sweetest dog. Again, it is the OWNER, not the dog.

Pitbulls are not bad dogs. The people who own pits who train the pits to attack are bad. Pitbulls in the old days used to be called "nanny dogs" because they were so protective of children. I've had pitbulls, they're some of the sweetest dogs in the world. Golden retrievers and German shepherds bite more people than pitbulls do, and usually when a pitbull bites someone, it's either because the dog was trained to do so, it wasn't trained at all, or the dog was abused. Any dog can be dangerous. A Pomeranian killed an infant in one case, even a St. Bernard or a pekignese can be dangerous if not properly trained or trained at all, or abused.

How many vicious pitbulls have you actually met jasperark?

ALaskan

When's the last time you read about a Golden Retriever killing a child? Get into the real world.Over and over pit bulls are killing and maiming. You guys are the ones living in a fantasy worls.

Over and over pit bulls are killing and maiming.

Because people train them to do it. Do some research about pitbulls before you start advocating a pitbull genocide.

get real, pitbulls are known for killing only because so many idiots own them, these thug like wannabes wont have a golden retriever because they dont look right for the thug like image but if a thug did decide to get a golden i'll bet the golden would turn out as mean as any other dog owned by the same people. pitbulls that are owned by nice families are not vicious.

get real, that's why the next door neighbor's pit bull dug under their fence (found out after they knew about the trench he dug on their side of the 5 ft high WOOD fence - We couldn't see it) who dug his way into my yard under a wood fence & attacked one of my labs. my quiet lovable GENTLE black lab who required surgery to his nose/leather & face to repair the damage --- yeah, I sued home owner's insurance AND WON..... THANK GOD it was NOT a child. They didn't move to help get him either until I came out with my hunting shotgun to remove their dog. Sheriffs told me I had every right under the law to shoot the attacking dog - I didn't as I do love animals & the owners were finally able to get their dog. I've seen it growl, jump & snap at their own grandchild (and other people), it bit a home health aide who required over 30 stitches in her face (just because she showed up for work there), but I guess that's ok because they've "raised it to be a gentle people-loving dog".......yeah, that's all that we need in this world is more pit bulls like that. I guess the chimp's owner house insurance would not pay out enough, so they felt they have to sue the state. OH, THAT'S RIGHT - THIS FORUM IS ABOUT CHIMPS NOT PIT BULLS.

The chimp's owner does seem to have some assets and a business. However, she is trying to say it is workman's compensation as the friend was also an employee. If that strategy is accepted by the courts, the payout is extremely limited and the chimp's owner would not see any loss of assets. That's crap. Yes, I think the state should have stepped in when they were informed that the chimp was dangerous, but the chimp's owner is the one that should be help PERSONALLY responsible. Her attempts to avoid financial responsibility for this attack nauseate me.