1) Created a law designed to prohibit the ownership of apes over 50 pounds because of this chimp..
2) Allowed the owners of this animal to keep him in enclosures that did not follow Massachusetts law..
3) Refused to follow Massachusetts state law and dispose of the animal accordingly..
At every point of the equation the state was negligent and the fact that it was negligent allowed for this attack to occur. As I see it, the state will settle out of court and pay out a large sum of money because it failed to act for 6 years. What are they going to argue? That the same state where it takes days for animal control to put down a pibtull took 6 years to put a chimpanzee in a suitable enclosure?