Dog bite statue does not apply to chimp mauling in Connecticut

   When Travis (pictured on right), a 200 pound chimpanzee, brutally attacked 55-year-old Charla Nash in Stamford, Connecticut in February 2009, lawmaker's across the country were placed on notice about the potential danger non-domesticated animals  presented to people keeping them as pets. Shortly thereafter, a $50 million lawsuit was filed against the owner of Travis, Sandra Herold, for negligence.

   The lawsuit may very well have impact on animal bite law in Connecticut and other states, and revision of the Connecticut law, which currently states that a bite inflicted by a wild animal, such as a chimpanzee, is not encompassed by strict statuatory liability, as in the case with dog bites. Thus, given the law as it currently stands, the owner of Travis can be found liable only if she knew that Travis possessed dangerous propensities prior to the incident, or if her negligent handling of Travis was the proximate cause of the attack on the plaintiff.

   Given the publicity and concern this incident generated, lawmakers in Connecticut may be moving towards the position that attacks by wild animals kept as pets should be treated in the same manner as dog bites: strict liability barring any mitigating circumstances such as provocation or assumption of risk. In other words, the owner need not know about any prior dangerous propensities in the animal in order to be liable for the injury inflicted by an animal they own or keep. On a national level, the attack also engendered concerns of Congressmen: shortly after the incident, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill making it illegal to buy or transport primates across state lines for the purpose of keeping them as pets.

   The incident happened when Travis escaped from the defendant's home, and according to news reports she summoned a friend of some thirty years to assist in capturing Travis. This person knew Travis. Details of how the incident unfolded remain conflicting; namely, if the attack commenced outside during the capture part of the sequence, or after the plaintiff came into the house of the defendant.

   Regardless, at some point he viciously attacked Nash. Her face was severely disfigured. When police arrived at the scene, Travis tried to attack one of the officers who shot and killed Travis. The victim was severely mauled. She underwent hours of surgery, suffered brain damage, lost her nose, sustained possible blindness, and for a period of time she remained in a medically induced coma. The owner of Travis was also hospitalized for her injuries as a result of trying to get Travis off of the victim during the attack.

   The defendant probably made the mistake of blaming the victim for the attack by stating that the attack happened because she changed her hairdo and because she was driving a different car, thus causing Travis to became protective. It is uncertain if she medicated Travis with Xanax (a widely used short acting sedative) on the day of the incident, as some news stories have reported.

   Prior to the incident, Travis was somewhat of a celebrity around town. He was featured in television commercials for Coca-Cola and Old Navy. Those who knew Travis say he was treated like a person: he drank wine from stemmed glasses, ate at the table, dressed himself, and was computer literate.

   However, there was also the dark side of this well-known chimp. Allegedly, in 1996 he bit a woman on her hand and then tried to drag her into a car. In 1998 he allegedly bit another person, and in 2003 he escaped from the defendant's car and wandered into downtown Stamford disrupting traffic. In 2003, a former animal control officer says he warned the defendant about Travis.

   Given the current law in Connecticut, the success of the plaintiff's lawsuit may hinge on proving that the owner knew of Travis' dangerous propensities, or that she acted in a negligent manner in the handling of Travis at the time of the incident. Obvious questions are how Travis escaped from the house, did the owner have a plan in place to deal with his escape behavior, were the techniques she used to get Travis back into the house appropriate for the circumstances, and did she invite the plaintiff into her house knowing that Travis was in an agitated state? An expert in animal behavior could help clarify these aspects of the case.

Email: