The subject, naturally, has taken a couple of tangents, such as 'do you like Oprah?' and 'Does the victim bear some responsibility?'. It happens.How is it relevant to the OP and whether or not she was being "exploited" by Oprah?
She said to Oprah that she had repeatedly warned her friend.
As far as the lawsuit, I'm not sure about liability laws. If I was on a jury I would think the jury would receive instructions.
But let's use, as a comparison, if a friend has a car that you felt had bad brakes. You warned your friend that he/she needed to get them fixed because they posed a danger to others. Then you decided to help your friend by driving your friend to the doctor's in his/her car. The brake went out and you were paralyzed in the accident. Do you bear some culpability in the accident?
Holy crap! My mouth was agape simply looking at her face and reading that horrific story. What kind of a negligent piece of crap has a rabid chimp running around their house!? Honestly, I would just kill myself if I were that lady. Good Lord...
I don't think there is a question of ultimate liability here. The incident occurred at the chimp's owner's house. I don't know enough about contributory negligence to comment on it, but I don't see how the chimp owner is going to avoid some amount of liability here.
Hmmmm. I have a friend who owns a chimp. I have seen the chimp behave erratically here and there, but the chimp has never attacked the owner or me. I go to my friend's house because she has asked for my help. I don't have any fear because I haven't witnessed any behavior on the part of the chimp that would make me fear for my face and body. The chimp attacks me and mauls me and I suffer severe injuries as a result of my friend's pet (a pet I don't own), and yet because I willingly went to her house, I'm at fault. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
No idea, and not sure how it's relevant.
I never said you'd be at fault! I said if got attacked by a wild animal when you didn't need to see it as close to it as you did. You shouldn't be suing because what do you expect from a WILD ANIMAL ESPECIALLY A CHIMP?
Chimps are aggressive, they are not always friendly! Common sense and instinct should be taking over. Wild animal, a hell of a lot stronger than you, I probably should be thinking I shouldn't be so close especially if my only protection is him on a leash.
Oh, there is another primate(that's like a chimp) that loves to touch and hug, if it touches you or charla are you both going to be suing for sexual assault because the monkey grabs your private parts and shows you his or her own?
I think the woman was mentally unbalanced. She slept in the same bed as the adult male chimp, who knows what went on.
Holy crap, what? I've slept in the same bed with my dogs and cats, does that imply that something untoward went on?
Geez.
Why even go there?
In a strange twist to the story of the mauler chimp who attacked and ate the face off of his victim Monday, it has been revealed the owner of the chimp permitted the animal to bathe, eat, and even sleep with her. The owner is a childless widow.
After having lost her son to an accident and her husband only a few years ago, Sandy Herold began to have a closer relationship with the Travis the chimp, inviting him to made-for-two baths, feeding him wine served in flutes and feeding him lobster.
Travis reportedly became upset if she left with company and kissed her sweetly if she left by herself. The chimp would comb her hair and paint her pictures which she proudly hung on the refrigerator. It is unclear how this factored into the attack.
OMG. I can tell I can't have a logical and rational discussion with you on this when you clearly have no grasp of the facts involved. Toodles. :2wave:
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:
Excuse me? Did you just call me a stupid liberal moron?
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:
I never said you'd be at fault! I said if got attacked by a wild animal when you didn't need to see it as close to it as you did. You shouldn't be suing because what do you expect from a WILD ANIMAL ESPECIALLY A CHIMP?
Chimps are aggressive, they are not always friendly! Common sense and instinct should be taking over. Wild animal, a hell of a lot stronger than you, I probably should be thinking I shouldn't be so close especially if my only protection is him on a leash.
Oh, there is another primate(that's like a chimp) that loves to touch and hug, if it touches you or charla are you both going to be suing for sexual assault because the monkey grabs your private parts and shows you his or her own?
It did come across that way to me. Not a very helpful contribution to the conversation from my point of view. :roll:
Thank you. It's why I reported his post.
What is moronic or liberal about holding an individual financially responsible for the damages caused by their own poor choices?
Aside from being a big baby. It was you who first used capital letters. And I used the capital letters so that you could understand the important words. I probably should have used capital letters and bolded them too.
You do not understand that Charla was not a victim. She went to her friends house to pet the chimp. What do you expect to happen when you are with a WILD ANIMAL
Aside from being a big baby. It was you who first used capital letters. And I used the capital letters so that you could understand the important words. I probably should have used capital letters and bolded them too.
You do not understand that Charla was not a victim. She went to her friends house to pet the chimp. What do you expect to happen when you are with a WILD ANIMAL
Now you're calling her a big baby? How does that contribute to the conversation or follow the TOS rules that say to attack ideas, not people?
Here's what you said:
It would be one thing if she was wandering in the jungle and a chimp attacked her. She went to a friend's house. This friend owned the wild animal and had knowledge of the animal's propensity to bite. Are you implying that she should not bear any responsbility? [/quoute]Here is what I will say again. Her friend went to see a wild animal. A wild animal is known for biting more often than dogs or cats. Why would you see a wild animal if you didn't have any protective barriers? Seems stupid and even more stupid for her to be suing because the chimp mauled her.
Huh? This is why I said I couldn't discuss this with you. This makes absolutely no sense. What this tells me is that you are not looking at the specific facts in this case.
I have looked at the specific facts in this case. You just don't have any argument. Charla was responsible for her own safetly and she should have known better. An animal in the zoo, is not the sort of animal you'd want to have a close encounter with. NONE.
I feel like I"m back in elementary school. Maybe he'll pull my hair next.
No, you don't have an idea whatsoever. A gun is not moving, it doesn't act on it's own does it? The chimp has a mind of its own it is wild and it will do what it whats because it doesn't follow commands and it doesn't sit still. You go see it where there is no protective barrier you are bound to get hurt.No, you do not understand. If you have a loaded gun in your house, and you invite Charla over. Charla knows you carry a loaded gun in your house for protection. Your significant other takes the gun and shoots Charla in the face. Are you implying that you were not, at a minimum, contributorily negligent for having a loaded gun in your house? I can't wait to read your response!
Here is what I will say again. Her friend went to see a wild animal. A wild animal is known for biting more often than dogs or cats. Why would you see a wild animal if you didn't have any protective barriers? Seems stupid and even more stupid for her to be suing because the chimp mauled her.
I have looked at the specific facts in this case. You just don't have any argument. Charla was responsible for her own safetly and she should have known better. An animal in the zoo, is not the sort of animal you'd want to have a close encounter with. NONE.
No, it doesn't matter. Its a wild animal you shouldn't be risking yourself with a wild animal. An attack is bound to happen.I disagree. Based on my review of the facts, it seems as though Charla had multiple encounters with the chimp where her safety was never threatened. She had no reason to fear for her safety this time. Sure, the friend said the chimp was agitated, but would one assume that meant the chimp would maul her in the manner that he did?
That is whats sad, she will get money.Oh, but I do. You just think your argument is better than mine, which is fine. I feel pretty darn confident that Charla will get some sort of monetary settlement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?