You are trying to prove that the victim was not aware that adult chimpanzees were dangerous---- that is her problem. It's like someone pointing a gun at their own head and claiming they did not know that was dangerous.
LOLOLOL Oh, ok. So I'll take your word for it. Right.
It would have supported your claim the victim knew the pet was dangerous. (Not proven, but supported). Oh well.
And as I pointed out, most people are not aware that TAME adult chimps (such as a pet in the home) are dangerous.
And yes, sometimes the 'state' can be held liable for people with prior DUI convictions who get their license's reinstated who do harm again.
Here is an example of a suit recently filed:
Family files $45M claim against Seattle in fatal Wedgwood crash | Local News | The Seattle Times
The city will settle I'm sure but they will have to accept liability. Over the course of the year and investigation, they admitted they were negligent in following up with the driver. All the new policies they are attempting to institute are also evidence that they recognize their error...and hoped to prevent a lawsuit (unsuccessfully, obviously).
Case in point: Multiple DUI driver recently received reinstated license. Driver then wiped out family of 4....killed both grandparents and nearly killed mother and 10 day old baby.
LOL, that's like saying that if the state knew about the whereabouts of an escaped convict and did nothing to take it in, they wouldnt be liable for any harm the escapee did while free.
Oh...you probably think that's ok too, right? Just let the dangerous criminal remain shacked up with his girfriend, knowing he's there, not worry about it. And when he rapes a friend visiting, the state's not responsible for that either?
It's kind of weird to see right wingers arguing that government shouldn't be held liable for its incompetence...
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
This is a law that denies ownership of dangerous animals and the state IS responsible for enforcing that law. The state specifically created the law to protect the public. Duh....
And in this case, the state identified the animal as dangerous. And had the legal duty to remove the animal to protect the public. And was negligent in doing so.