Conn. woman mauled by chimpanzee faces uphill battle in appeal to sue state for $150 million

  • Article by: JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN , Associated Press
  • Updated: June 22, 2013 - 8:25 AM

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Blocked in her bid to sue the state for $150 million, the woman mauled and disfigured by a chimpanzee in 2009 faces an uphill battle as she appeals to the legislature.

  • 6
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 6 of 6
tupelohoneyJun. 22, 13 9:38 AM

She suffered a horrendous attack and is severely injured for life, but the state had nothing to do with it. Money grab. Pure and simple.

10
0
ericgus55Jun. 22, 1311:13 AM

Having seen a couple in-depth reports on this attack, this woman knew the risks of what she was doing and the owner did, as well, and prior to the attack they were arguing with local authorities for the freedom to keep this pet after neighbors had expressed concerns. It's a horrific story, but the taxpayers of Connecticut shouldn't be expected to pay $150 million AFTER she got a $4 million settlement from the now-deceased owner (her close friend). To echo tupelohoney, it's sad story but this is a money grab. The settlement she has already gotten will cover her bills, and she's looking to blame (and cash in from) the state for not protecting her in advance from her friend and her friend's dangerous pet. If this sort of suit is allowed, then states cannot permit ANY dangerous pets moving forward. If folks want the personal freedom to own dangerous pets, then lawsuits cannot be allowed against the state for failure to protect us. Personal freedom OR protection from ourselves, we can't have it both ways.

7
0
janders55811Jun. 22, 1312:23 PM

Dopnt forget there is a lawyer that is most likely the one that decided that 150m is a nice number to get at least ome third of.

5
0
fdrebinJun. 22, 13 1:31 PM

The attack, while horrific and unimaginable ,occurred on private property. This lady was there at the request ofthe owner of that property and came voluntarily. I would argue she could get every penney from the estate, but there is NO rational reason why the citizens should be involved in contributing additional settlement monies. And exactly how do you make a law retroactively and apply it to something that was lawful at the time. That would be like Obama passing a law requiringretroactive taz rates in years they weren't due accorfing to existing law. oh, wait, Obama did that. never mind.

3
2
ericgus55Jun. 22, 13 7:04 PM

That's one of the recurring themes with potentially dangerous pets. If authorities get complaints and attempt to take away the pets we hear: "You cannot take away my pet, I'm going to sue!!" AFTER something happens, we hear: 'Why didn't you take away that pet? I'm going to sue!!" Damned if you do, damned if you don't (and someone looking to cash in either way).

7
0
tcatheartJun. 23, 13 9:25 AM

Yet another case of someone keeping a wild animal as a pet. This sort of thing should be illegal. The wild animals are for the wild or for the zoos. Tigers, bears, chimps, etc. are NOT pets for crying out loud. While I do feel bad for her, this shouldn't be on the people of Connecticut to pay for injuries.

4
0
  • 1 - 6 of 6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT