Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 188

Thread: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.
    A mildly interesting corollary...

    What if the state recognized it was illegal, but simply chose that other things were if greater importance in which to focus time and resources to dealing with than the chimp.

    I can see an argument that the state would be culpable to some degree, but I think it would also be mitigated by the woman's own actions as well. In this instance, had the state acted then it could've been prevented....but it still could've been prevented without state action if she did not put herself into a knowingly dangerous situation.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Liability works a lot of ways.

    In this case, the state repurposed money from citizens to task an agency with protecting the citizens from dangerous animals, then failed to act in that capacity when the drawn out process preceding this event indicated intervention was necessary.

    The Commissioner even agreed that the agency didn't behave appropriately, but noted that this is the sort of mistake the state is allowed to overlook because making good on the failure would open the floodgates to a stream of lawsuits that would impede its ability to fulfill its greater prerogatives.

    In short, the state is too important to be impeded with moral responsibility for its failures.

    They key point here is that the state took the victim's money for the treasury under the threat of legal action if she tried to evade taxation. Her money bought her into the package of public services the state provides, including protection from situations of this nature. That is the key. If they hadn't purposed the role of protecting the public from dangerous animals and tased an agency to that effect, the moral obligation would not exist at all because the prerogative of individuals to protect themselves (which conservatives assert exists) would never have been taken away from them.

    As it is, the state is arguing that it has the right to collect taxes to provide services and then fail to provide those services without any consequence.
    The proximate cause of the injury was on the owner of the chimp not the state.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    The proximate cause of the injury was on the owner of the chimp not the state.
    Do you actually believe you're going to change someones mind here?

    This isn't "It's A Wonderful Life" - this is: "a chimp bit someones face off and now they want the taxpayer to pay for it life."

    Some people think everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for their own actions or their "pets" actions in which they are responsible for.

    You can't teach an old dog new tricks...

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    A mildly interesting corollary...

    What if the state recognized it was illegal, but simply chose that other things were if greater importance in which to focus time and resources to dealing with than the chimp.

    I can see an argument that the state would be culpable to some degree, but I think it would also be mitigated by the woman's own actions as well. In this instance, had the state acted then it could've been prevented....but it still could've been prevented without state action if she did not put herself into a knowingly dangerous situation.
    This is a fair and logical outlook.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,251

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
    Do you check every bridge to make sure it's safe before you cross in your car? Do you hire engineers to check the bridge for structural damage etc?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  6. #56
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    The only possible way for this case to even have a chance to proceed would be a) the chimp was illegal and there is proof the state/animal control failed to remove it or b) the chimp was known to be a danger and the state/animal control failed to remove the animal.

    Furthermore your pesudo-logic here is quite funny considering dogs (and other animals) bite/kill/injure people every year, yet have you ever seen a party sue the state over a dog bite or even a swarm of bee stings?
    Though these discussions pro or con are entirely academic becasuse of the sovereign immunity card that the State can, and will play.

    There probably would be a lawsuit against the State if they tailored a laws or ordinances to exempt a particular pit bull owner. Especially if that particular Pitbull had gotten out of control or showed aggression before and they still not only tailored the laws to exempt that particular dog and owner, but then failed to enforce the limited laws that existed (enclosure law). Then factor in that there are, how many chimps in Connecticut? So the State cant really claim it is unreasonable to do an enclosure inspection.

    But... with sovereign immunity, the Sovereign cant be negligent. My guess is that the Sovereign will decide to toss her a million dollars via a special legislative act and then close the matter. If she wants more, then they will assert their immunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
    As with the other poster, I disagree - to a degree.

    The State has a social contract with members of society to ensure their safety when reasonable and possible. The hard part is defining "reasonable" and "possible".

    Too much one way creates a nanny state ideaology. Too much the other way caters to ideaologies that claim that health and safety regulations regarding food, transportation, building and construction, financial services, products etc. are "unconstitutional".
    Last edited by Cryptic; 03-23-14 at 12:47 PM.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    Though these discussions pro or con are entirely academic becasuse of the sovereign immunity card that the State can, and will play.

    There probably would be a lawsuit against the State if they tailored a laws or ordinances to exempt a particular pit bull owner. Especially if that particular Pitbull had gotten out of control or showed aggression before and they still not only tailored the laws to exempt that particular dog and owner, but then failed to enforce the limited laws that existed (enclosure law). Then factor in that there are, how many chimps in Connecticut? So the State cant really claim it is unreasonable to do an enclosure inspection.

    But... with sovereign immunity, the Sovereign cant be negligent. My guess is that the Sovereign will decide to toss her a million dollars via a special legislative act and then close the matter. If she wants more, then they will assert their immunity.


    As with the other poster, I disagree - to a degree.

    The State has a social contract with members of society to ensure their safety when reasonable and possible. The hard part is defining "reasonable" and "possible".

    Too much one way creates a nanny state ideaology. Too much the other way caters to ideaologies that claim that health and safety regulations regarding food, transportation, building and construction, financial services, products etc. are "unconstitutional".
    You can sue anyone or any entity for anything - there is nothing stopping a person from doing that, however it is up to a judge to decide if there is any legal credence to their claims.

    And NO - a state shouldn't be held responsible for anothers stupidity unless they were blatantly negligent (e.g - a cop lets a drunk off the hook and he drives home with someone in his windshield).

  8. #58
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I know for a fact that numerous police agencies know where "crack houses" are located. There are many reasons why the police don't move on such public nuisances when the police first become aware of said entities. Now lets say crack house operators engage in a gun battle with rival crack dealers and a little girl walking to grandma's is hit in the crossfire

    can she SUCCESSFULLY sue the cops

    answer NO
    Actually, why not?

  9. #59
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,846

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    No blurring. Your safety in the end is your responsibility.
    This has nothing to do with that...the animal was a pet in someone's house. How was she irresponsible?

    If the state had a law against exotic animals and knew about this chimp and didnt confiscate it, then it can be held liable.


    Edit: I totally believe the owner of the animal should also be held responsible, financially and possibly even criminally.
    Last edited by Lursa; 03-23-14 at 03:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,846

    Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And I say she does based on the fact that the state did not perform its duties after it:

    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?
    And if she's a resident of that state, then she PAID for that service and for them to do their jobs properly. Which they did not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •