I’m usually pretty cold on big verdicts like everyone else here but I think $50mm ain’t enough. This lady suffered things that compare with what Mengele did to Jews in WW2.
Perhaps a ten million plus award/settlement will adequately discourage those who keep these creatures at home that should be in the wild.
I’m curious: did her home insurer know of the creature? Did she have any home/renters coverage? If so write the policy limit check and be done as quick as you can.
At least Moe had the common sense to hire other chimps to attack his owner, St James Davis. The moral of that story is, Don’t go to the monkey sanctuary without enough cakes for everyone.
The moral of the reported story is that people don’t need to own wild animals and they should be required to post a bond with the local govenment to prove financial liability if they feel they have to have one. Make it very expensive to own a wild animal.
While this will be a dangerous case regardless of liability, one must raise the question. Nash volunteered to help the owner catch the beast as it escaped from the house. She put herself in danger. Tragic as this might be, it was a bad call. Had she simply said “no” to her friend, she’d still have a life. And all this because some nut case just had to have a 200 pound wild animal, probably because she was a failure at having a relationship with a human.
From the article: “No amount of money can compensate my sister for the injuries she has suffered”, quoting the victim’s brother Michael.
I guess either he has an unusual counting system where the figure “no amount” comes between 49,999,999 and 50 million, or that will be the fee charged by the conservator of the victim’s estate.
I disagree, the friend volunteered to help, but the owner, having been warned at least twice and having knowledge of two biting incidents, is clearly liable. I believe the chimp’s owner losing all her financial assets is nothing compared to what Charla Nash lost. New meaning to: With friends like this who needs enemies.
I think we’ll all agree this meets the definition of an “accident” and the injuries are catastrophic. Having said that, I’d be interested in your comments about the concept of “compensation” as defined by the commissioned salesmen who represent victims for 33-50% of the take, and our enlightened legal system in general.
I’d like to think we’d also agree that life, as this plaintiff knew it, is over. No face, no hands, etc. If “no amount of money” can compensate for this, what’s the purpose of seeking of seeking mega-millions? Taking emotion out of the equation, how will becoming rich make her life any better. I’m speaking of “general”, not “pecuniary” damages. Even after all her medical expenses are provided for, what does the money do for her?
Should the city have some exposure for knowingly allowing her to harbor a wild animal like this? Of course. The solution to that is not throwing money at the plaintiff, but implementing some change in the way cities & states handle such matters. They’ll be insured for this. If not, the taxpayers will ultimately pay the price.
As for comparative liability, it’s probably moot due to the circumstances. But Dan raises a good point. The plaintiff was familiar with this animal and apparently felt comfortable volunteering to re-capture it. Bad decision that is the proximate cause of her situation. People have to stop abdicating personal responsibility to others like the city/state.
I’m usually pretty cold on big verdicts like everyone else here but I think $50mm ain’t enough. This lady suffered things that compare with what Mengele did to Jews in WW2.
Perhaps a ten million plus award/settlement will adequately discourage those who keep these creatures at home that should be in the wild.
I’m curious: did her home insurer know of the creature? Did she have any home/renters coverage? If so write the policy limit check and be done as quick as you can.
At least Moe had the common sense to hire other chimps to attack his owner, St James Davis. The moral of that story is, Don’t go to the monkey sanctuary without enough cakes for everyone.
The moral of the reported story is that people don’t need to own wild animals and they should be required to post a bond with the local govenment to prove financial liability if they feel they have to have one. Make it very expensive to own a wild animal.
how’s she gonna hold the money
While this will be a dangerous case regardless of liability, one must raise the question. Nash volunteered to help the owner catch the beast as it escaped from the house. She put herself in danger. Tragic as this might be, it was a bad call. Had she simply said “no” to her friend, she’d still have a life. And all this because some nut case just had to have a 200 pound wild animal, probably because she was a failure at having a relationship with a human.
From the article: “No amount of money can compensate my sister for the injuries she has suffered”, quoting the victim’s brother Michael.
I guess either he has an unusual counting system where the figure “no amount” comes between 49,999,999 and 50 million, or that will be the fee charged by the conservator of the victim’s estate.
I disagree, the friend volunteered to help, but the owner, having been warned at least twice and having knowledge of two biting incidents, is clearly liable. I believe the chimp’s owner losing all her financial assets is nothing compared to what Charla Nash lost. New meaning to: With friends like this who needs enemies.
I think we’ll all agree this meets the definition of an “accident” and the injuries are catastrophic. Having said that, I’d be interested in your comments about the concept of “compensation” as defined by the commissioned salesmen who represent victims for 33-50% of the take, and our enlightened legal system in general.
I’d like to think we’d also agree that life, as this plaintiff knew it, is over. No face, no hands, etc. If “no amount of money” can compensate for this, what’s the purpose of seeking of seeking mega-millions? Taking emotion out of the equation, how will becoming rich make her life any better. I’m speaking of “general”, not “pecuniary” damages. Even after all her medical expenses are provided for, what does the money do for her?
Should the city have some exposure for knowingly allowing her to harbor a wild animal like this? Of course. The solution to that is not throwing money at the plaintiff, but implementing some change in the way cities & states handle such matters. They’ll be insured for this. If not, the taxpayers will ultimately pay the price.
As for comparative liability, it’s probably moot due to the circumstances. But Dan raises a good point. The plaintiff was familiar with this animal and apparently felt comfortable volunteering to re-capture it. Bad decision that is the proximate cause of her situation. People have to stop abdicating personal responsibility to others like the city/state.
If Ms. Herald answered no to the question “any exotic pets” that is on the HO questionairre, then she shouldn’t even have HO coverage…