Reagan: If I recall correctly, Ms. Nash was a friend of Ms. Harold’s and was there as an invitee when this awful incident occurred. If Ms. Harold had properly controlled her chimp, there would have been no reason for Ms. Nash to try to interact with it in an unfamiliar setting (for the chimp). It appears that neither of the two women had any reason to believe, based on personal experience with the chimp, that it would attack a familiar human being. Nevertheless, Ms. Harold owed Ms. Nash a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to her. Ms. Harold apparently had no plan in place to properly restrain the chimp, and no plan in place to deal safely with an unanticipated escape. I’m betting a jury will fault Ms. Harold for carelessness rather than fault Ms. Nash for assumption of risk.
In any event, unfortunately no amount of money will be able to replace what Ms. Nash has lost. I expect that this matter will end with a confidential out-of-court settlement.
Where’s the $$ going to come from? I suspect any limits would be significantly below the $50 Million they want. Ann is correct, it probably will be a confidential out of court settlement. Throw in policy limits & walk away.
even a comparative negligence assessment against this woman would make no difference in the damages. There is no amount of money to compensate this woman for losing her face. It’s unfortunate our legal system hasn’t figured that out yet. Since she’s now blind and has no face, what good is a chunk of money beyond paying medical bills. Even after all the surgeries, she’ll still be blind and have no face. Her attorney will be thrilled. He’ll make mega buck in commission and will have to do nothing to prove his case.
Ford: Yes, the damage done to Ms. Nash in this matter is quite obvious. But the attorney still has to prove that the injuries are the result of compensable negligent action by Ms. Harold before he/she gets to start in on proving the special damages. When the attorney gets to the damages issue, it will still be necessary to provide proof that all the claimed damage was the direct result of the defendant’s negligence. Trust me, this case will not move forward without a lot of work by the attorney, at both pre-trial and trial phases, and in settlement efforts. Keep in mind also that Ms. Harold’s attorney/s will be working hard to prove that she is NOT liable for the actions of the chimp. No doubt the attorney will get a good chunk of the judgment/settlement, but it won’t be without any effort on the attorney’s part.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This stupid woman VOLUNTEERED to hlep corral the wild beast. She gets what she gets, and deserves. Too bad. I’d counter sue her
Reagan: If I recall correctly, Ms. Nash was a friend of Ms. Harold’s and was there as an invitee when this awful incident occurred. If Ms. Harold had properly controlled her chimp, there would have been no reason for Ms. Nash to try to interact with it in an unfamiliar setting (for the chimp). It appears that neither of the two women had any reason to believe, based on personal experience with the chimp, that it would attack a familiar human being. Nevertheless, Ms. Harold owed Ms. Nash a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to her. Ms. Harold apparently had no plan in place to properly restrain the chimp, and no plan in place to deal safely with an unanticipated escape. I’m betting a jury will fault Ms. Harold for carelessness rather than fault Ms. Nash for assumption of risk.
In any event, unfortunately no amount of money will be able to replace what Ms. Nash has lost. I expect that this matter will end with a confidential out-of-court settlement.
Where’s the $$ going to come from? I suspect any limits would be significantly below the $50 Million they want. Ann is correct, it probably will be a confidential out of court settlement. Throw in policy limits & walk away.
even a comparative negligence assessment against this woman would make no difference in the damages. There is no amount of money to compensate this woman for losing her face. It’s unfortunate our legal system hasn’t figured that out yet. Since she’s now blind and has no face, what good is a chunk of money beyond paying medical bills. Even after all the surgeries, she’ll still be blind and have no face. Her attorney will be thrilled. He’ll make mega buck in commission and will have to do nothing to prove his case.
Ford: Yes, the damage done to Ms. Nash in this matter is quite obvious. But the attorney still has to prove that the injuries are the result of compensable negligent action by Ms. Harold before he/she gets to start in on proving the special damages. When the attorney gets to the damages issue, it will still be necessary to provide proof that all the claimed damage was the direct result of the defendant’s negligence. Trust me, this case will not move forward without a lot of work by the attorney, at both pre-trial and trial phases, and in settlement efforts. Keep in mind also that Ms. Harold’s attorney/s will be working hard to prove that she is NOT liable for the actions of the chimp. No doubt the attorney will get a good chunk of the judgment/settlement, but it won’t be without any effort on the attorney’s part.