Chimp Owner Claims Connecticut Woman was Mauled on the Job

An attorney representing the owner of a chimpanzee that mauled and blinded a woman is calling the attack a work-related incident and said her family’s case should be treated like a workers’ compensation claim.

The strategy, if successful, would severely limit potential damages in the case and insulate the chimp owner from personal liability.

The 200-pound chimpanzee named Travis went berserk in February when his owner, Sandra Herold, asked her friend and employee Charla Nash to help lure him back into her house in Stamford. The animal ripped off Nash’s hands, nose, lips and eyelids, and she remains in stable condition at the Cleveland Clinic.

Police shot and killed the chimp.

Nash’s family has filed a $50 million lawsuit against Herold.

But Herold’s attorney, Robert Golger, says in recent court papers that Nash was working as an employee of Herold’s tow truck company, Desire Me Motors, at the time of the attack. He argues that Travis was an integral part of marketing the business and that the house where the attack occurred is a business office of the company. Nash fed Travis, cleaned his play area and purchased his supplies as an employee, Golger contends.

“It’s an unfortunate and tragic accident that happened in the workplace and should be subject to the provisions of the Connecticut workers’ compensation statutes,” he said.

Matt Newman, attorney for Nash’s family, disagreed.

Under workers’ compensation law, Nash would have her medical bills paid for by the employer’s insurance and would receive partial wage replacement, but would not get any money for pain and suffering that makes up a large part of jury awards in civil cases. Injured workers typically receive 65 to 75 percent of their wages.

Paul Slager, an attorney in Stamford not involved in the case, says Golger is making “a pretty creative argument.”

To win, Herold must prove there was an employer-employee relationship and that Nash’s injuries were work-related.

Nathan Shafner, a workers’ compensation attorney in Connecticut, called the tactic “a very sellable argument” and thinks it could prevail.

The strategy leaves Nash’s side in a quandary because they only have one year to file a workers’ compensation claim, Shafner said. If they fail to file that claim and lose the civil case, they could be left with no remedy, he said.