• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Hatuey said:
Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

The proximate cause of the injury was on the owner of the chimp not the state.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The proximate cause of the injury was on the owner of the chimp not the state.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a fair and logical outlook.
 
US Conservative said:
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mr.Nick said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

US Conservative said:
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
Click to expand...
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:
Cryptic said:
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".
Click to expand...

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).
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually, why not?
 
MrVicchio said:
No blurring. Your safety in the end is your responsibility.
Click to expand...

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:
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Going into someone's home with their pet is a 'dangerous situation?' How so? The presumption is that the animal is safe...it was unrestrained and the owner was there, unalarmed. She could choose not to go in the home....but she had no knowlege of an actual risk.

If I'm sitting at a dinner table in a home where I've been invited and your kid picks up his knife and stabs me...should I have anticipated that? Should I be responsible for putting myself in a 'dangerous situation?'
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

She knew the animal was there too. Oh never ****ibg mind. Somewhere somehow someone shoulda could woulda its never your fault these days.... stupid me thinking ppl should think and act in thier best interest.
 
MrVicchio said:
She knew the animal was there too. Oh never ****ibg mind. Somewhere somehow someone shoulda could woulda its never your fault these days.... stupid me thinking ppl should think and act in thier best interest.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Going into someone's home with their pet is a 'dangerous situation?' How so? The presumption is that the animal is safe...it was unrestrained and the owner was there, unalarmed. She could choose not to go in the home....but she had no knowlege of an actual risk.

If I'm sitting at a dinner table in a home where I've been invited and your kid picks up his knife and stabs me...should I have anticipated that? Should I be responsible for putting myself in a 'dangerous situation?'
Click to expand...
.....................
 
Lursa said:
.....................
Click to expand...

Yes yes, we know the "STATE" knew and since the state knew and didn't act it's ALL THEIR FAULT! How could this poor, innocent woman ever EVER have known there was a risk? It was a lovely PET for all SHE knew!

Seriously, plaintiff attorneys love people like you. What if this had been a pit viper attack? Would you feel the same way?
 
Del Zeppnile said:
That is not how liability works, the state did not cause this injury.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? Individuals are NEVER responsible, it's always someone, or something else. From "affluenza" to "there was no warning label how was I supposed to know ironing my shirt while wearing it was dangerous"? Double appeal to situations where emotionalism can trump common sense. The victimhood must be protected at all costs.
 
Anyone who thinks the state is responsible should go 10 rounds with a "domesticated" chimp.
 
Hard Truth said:
If the state regulatory agency knew there was a danger and had the means to address it (ie. knew where the chimp was being kept) but chose not to do their job without a very good reason, she has a good case against the state.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In my state, authorities will remove dangerous animals.
 
US Conservative said:
We had a similar case here in socal. A chimp mutilated a woman, and I believe she tried to sue unsuccessfully as well. I think she was giving the monkey anti-depressants to keep it from getting aggravated. We used to stop by as see the guy, she would have put him in her front yard, and it was near a hospital I was always at. Keep wild animals at your own peril.
Click to expand...

Call me crazy but anyone who would even want to be around one these horrible creatures needs to be in a cage. Chimpanzees are detestable creatures who have a natural suspicion of humans. I recall another chimp incident where a man and his wife were visiting a chimpanzee at a animal shelter that they used to own as a pet (most of these chimps end up in shelters eventually), and they were taking the chimp a birthday cake for the chimp's birthday, when another chimp became angry and tore the man's penis off. Yep, tore his penis off---which apparently is what these chimps may do to other males when angry.

I am not an animal psychologist, but what I believe is that chimpanzees in captivity are basically driven to being psychotic. If you've ever watched chimpanzees in a cage at the zoo you can see the anger and hate in their eyes. Much different from the look a lion has in it's eyes when it looks at you like you are lunch. A chimpanzee has that Charles Manson look in it's eyes that tells me that all it thinks about is ripping your face off because it can. A primate version of Hannibal Lechter.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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...
Click to expand...

Per the OP's article, those are the facts of this case.
 
Article said:
Her legal team has said that before the attack, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environment Protection (DEEP) had described the illegally owned, 200-pound (90 kilogram) chimp as a serious threat to public safety.
Click to expand...

This makes it rather black and white for me.

It sounds like the regulatory body identified an illegally owned animal, but then the enforcement aspect did not come into play. So that's #1. The government knew and did nothing, or at least not in time.

The second liability is the owner who, if well schooled in chimp ownership, knows that they can be incredibly violent, especially toward people who aren't the owner. There should be negligence charges happening for the owner. If it was their dog who brutally attacked someone, we would not be debating this.

The state definitely dropped the ball. The lawsuit is for a lot of money but I don't know if you can really put a price on a person's face and hands, plus all those surgeries are probably quite costly.

Tort law would not recognize blame for the victim because it was not her responsibility to know she would be brutally assaulted when entering this person's private property. The two parties who DID know were the owner and the state and they should both be held liable.
 
Hard Truth said:
Per the OP's article, those are the facts of this case.
Click to expand...

I could care less now considering this place is it's own zoo of opinions.

I want to see a progressive socialist fight a chimp - now that is a fact.
 
Zyphlin said:
...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..
Click to expand...

That would be a viable defense by the state and one that legitimately protects the police in most situations. To prevail, the plaintiff should (and probably will be, if it goes to trial) be required to prove that the agency had knowledge of a crime of illegal animal ownership, had the means to enforce it (ie. they were not too busy with more urgent matters), but did not enforce the law without a reasonable justification.
 
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi would fight a tree monkey to fund her reelection or to fund healthcare? I wish I had 10 million bucks because I bet if I had those funds it would happen.

And people wonder what they would do if they won 400 million in the lotto? haha
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes yes, we know the "STATE" knew and since the state knew and didn't act it's ALL THEIR FAULT! How could this poor, innocent woman ever EVER have known there was a risk? It was a lovely PET for all SHE knew!

Seriously, plaintiff attorneys love people like you. What if this had been a pit viper attack? Would you feel the same way?
Click to expand...

Its not entirely the state's fault, it is partially their fault.

If a bridge was structurally weak and the state knew about it but did not repair it or close it to traffic, then the state is likely to be held responsible for the deaths and injuries that result (unless they are completely immune), even if most drivers knew that the state's bridges were poorly maintained. If the transportation department could argue that there were so many brdiges in need of inspection or immediate repair due to prior neglect that they could not obtain the resources to fix them or close them all promptly, then they might prevail in court.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Its not entirely the state's fault, it is partially their fault.

If a bridge was structurally weak and the state knew about it but did not repair it or close it to traffic then the state is likely to be held responsible for the deaths and injuries that result. (unless they are completely immune) If the transportation department could argue that there were so many brdiges in need of inspection or immediate repair due to prior neglect that they could not obtain the resources to fix them or close them all promptly, then they would likely prevail in court.
Click to expand...

If it's even close to the states fault then we must have a guard in every home in the United States so no crazy chimps go nuts - you know just to be safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom