You honestly think someone should get half a billion dollars for willfully going into a place (it’s good to note it happened outdoors) where there was a chimpanzee she knew was agitated, and sure enough the monkey attacks her? Who exactly would pay this money? I highly doubt the 70 year old woman owner has half a billion dollars lying around.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard today, of course I’ve only been up for a few hours so I’m sure it’ll be topped. Wow. That’s rewarding her stupidity. How can that ever be good? What legal precedence will come out of this?
I’ve gone and read one of the actual articles (please link it next time if you want to discuss it, we all don’t read the same things you do every day you know). It seems that Travis, the chimpanzee who inflicted the damage, was a person-reared animal who had never had a violent streak in the past, had been a celebrity in commercials etc, so this attack was in my mind a freak accident.
One of the bottom lines here is no one should ever have a chimp as a pet unless they are fully trained and ready to kill the animal with a heavy tranquilizer GUN (nice try in stabbing him) if such situations happen! They are ferocious beasts. A 70 year old woman simply cannot exert physical control over a 200lb chimpanzee.
Based on what I’ve read in that article, the woman should not be entitled to ANY compensation. She willingly went over to a place where she knew an agitated chimpanzee was. Anyone with half a brain in their head would know that’s a dangerous situation. She willingly put herself in that dangerous situation, as a result she should not be entitled to any compensation towards what happened to her. What did she, a 55 year old woman, think she could do in the situation? Was she a trained chimpanzee expert? Did she have a tranq gun? Likely the answers are no, she was just a person who the friend called, and the person foolishly thought she could help corral in a 200lb crazed chimpanzee. This is natural selection at it’s best, folks.
But lawsuits are not logical at all. Here’s the lawsuit. According to it, the chimp owner was in the right to own the chimp (the lawyers are whining about having a permit, as if THAT would have somehow helped here). The lawyers are claiming it is the owner’s fault that the money went crazy, which is laughably false. While I agree with their claims that she should not have owned one, the legal fact is that she was permitted to have one and thus their opinion doesn’t mean shit here. But lawyers will always give you their opinion.
Of course, the shame in this is that the victim has no health insurance, and will require a fuckton of operations to even become stable let alone regain all her abilities, so the jury would likely sympathize and rule in her favour, thus setting a legal precedence that people are not responsible for their own stupid decisions.