I think if you were missing your hands, face, eyes, lips, etc. and couldn't work, pick things up, or have a normal life again...you'd feel differently. Honestly, if I were her, death would have been a better option. How this woman isn't or hasn't sunk into a serious depression shows that she's made of stronger stuff than I am...

She can never work and will require extensive care for the rest of her life. She may never have a normal relationship with another person either. I'd say get all you can get when that's the only recourse.

Ah yes, because when you are injured when screwing around with a dangerous animal, the next logical step is to steal tens of millions of dollars from other people. Disgusting

Wow, Ringo, such compassion. Tell us how you felt about the 9 /11 victims' families getting money?

Also, do you own a dog?

This is one courageous woman, but it's too bad that she subjected herself to the Oprah Circus. I hope that she got paid well for it. From the looks of her, Oprah is the one who needs counseling.

That's exactly what I was thinking. What the hell is Oprah doing putting this poor woman on display for the world to see, like a Circus!

The woman has no idea of what she looks like. If she knew, do you think she would even venture outside - hell no!

Oprah needs her head examined!

I think the woman has a fairly good idea of what she looks like as she wears a veil whenever she goes outside. However, she is probably tired of having to have an armed guard outside her room to guard her privacy from photographers and figured they would leave her alone if they finally got to see what she looks like. As she was able to choose the time and place of the unveiling, I think it probably gave her a sense of empowerment.

What a courageous woman.

How many of us would have the guts to go out in public looking like this?

I'm sure she is heavily medicated to help her keep her spirits up, since that is such a vital part of surviving something like this. Notice that she said they just told her a couple of weeks ago that she has no eye and will be permanently blind. She's probably still in shock- it's a huge amount for her to wrap her mind around. Plus there may be some brain damage.

I agree with Tamaraja. If it were me, I would have rather died.

I doubt that she really has any idea of what is going on with the legal matters. That is being carried out by the family. I can't imagine her doctor's allowing her that kind of stress.

If a friend has had an animal for years, I guess I would have assumed the animal was harmless - I guess she made a big mistake but now she has paid for it tremendously. I say get whatever you can - but unfortunately who is she going to recover from? The owner of the chimp certainly hasn't got that kind of money. She will need every cent for her care for the rest of her life. My heart goes out to her.

DAVE & RINGO.... you are so cold hearted. Charla Nash was just trying to help her friend.

So, Oprah is getting desperate. Sad to see her stoop this low.

Sorry that in this day and age the doctors couldn't have done a better job with the surgery.

We know that the state doesn't have any money to pay out even a million dollars without impacting the citizens of the state. However, Oprah has plenty of money in which to help this individual, hum, maybe since Oprah is exploiting this woman's misfortune for ratings, she can pay for her lifelong financial needs along with the woman who owned the chimp instead of having the attorney go after those not responsible but instead have deeper pockets.

This story in a nutshell pretty much sums up our country. A woman who felt the need for attention (think reality TV) by keeping a chimp she knew she could no longer keep control of. An innocent do-gooder who tryed to help out a friend who needed assistance and paid a horrible price for it (think of people/charities that are no longer viable because of greedy people/industries), who then seeks some financial assistance for her horrible injuries and is stonewalled by the greedy lawyers who are seeking to go after people who have deep pockets which means everyone and anyone other than the chimp's owner, and then finally being convinced by the media whores to come on national TV in order to be exploited in the name of ratings for all the people who get off on other people's demise. That in a nutshell sums up the world in which we live, and it is very sad!

she is very brave. i admit i would rather die. i would die. i would find a way. God would understand and forgive me.

They need to make a law that prohibits these types of animals being pets as well!

There is that law, and it was knowingly not enforced making the state liable.

Hmm...

...spoken like a true dyed-in-the-wool Party of Limbaugh radical-winger. Money before all else, above all else, to the exclusion of all others.

Forget that the state did not enforce its own laws regarding dangerous wild animals. Nope. Just make sure that the greedy me-first Party of Limbaughers get to keep their 30 pieces of silver.

That's "conservative compassion" for ya.

There was not a law prohibiting primates at the time of the attack. I believe the owner obtained a permit form the city of Stamford.

Connecticut has worked on changing its laws to include primates on the list of animals that can not be kept by citizens.

I believe the owner was supposed to have a permit, but didn't and was not forced to get one. Authorities were aware of the lack of permit and chose to ignore it.

I stand corrected she did not have a permit for the animal. She did not need one because she had the animal before the law required a permit.

(I am not saying a agree, I am just stating the facts)

"DAVE & RINGO.... you are so cold hearted. Charla Nash was just trying to help her friend."

How exactly is it 'cold hearted' to oppose theft of millions of dollars from innocent people? And you apparently missed the article, but she was trying to help her employer, not her friend. You sue employers for tens of millions of dollars, not friends.

Unfortunately, this woman made a mistake that had drastic consequences. She isn't the first, or even the millionth, and she is far from the last. She is no longer capable of working or taking care of herself, and I am quite willing to help support her for the rest of her life. That has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue here is a pathetic excuse to take over a hundred million dollars from people innocent of wrongdoing.

"This woman was the victim. She was trying to help, when asked. She now suffers a horrible fate the rest of life, and you think it is wrong for her to seek money for this injury?"

Um, nyman, it doesn't look like YOU should be complaining about the reading comprehension of anyone else. It is true, this woman was the victim of an unfortunate incident.....much the same as if I tried to help with an electrical cable on someone's property and was severely injured by an electric shock. Just like this woman, that would in no way make it somehow right for me to attempt to take tens of millions of dollars from innocent people.

I don't understand what you are saying. This woman will need care for the rest of her life. The individual(s) who owned the animal are totally responsible for its behavior. Many lawsuits are frivilous with the intent to get rich, but not this one. I wish this woman all the luck in the world. I saw her today on Oprah and I hope she will help her, too. This woman has a tremendous spirit and I hope she can maintain it. God Bless her.

"Many lawsuits are frivilous with the intent to get rich, but not this one."

So trying to take $150,000,000 from people that have done NOTHING to you is not frivolous?

The settlement won't be nearly that much, and you know it. That's how civil suits work in America. If the state is not liable then they won't have to pay, if they were they will. That's what lawyers are for.

"That's how civil suits work in America. If the state is not liable then they won't have to pay, if they were they will."

I wish that's how civil suits worked in America.

Scott, there are laws against killing and rape. People are convicted, supposedly rehabilitated and then paroled or other wise set free. Are you and I (the deep pockets of the state) supposed to pay for that as well. @!$%# happens. This lady took a terrible hit. I wonder if a compassionate doctor would not have been better off not not reviving this woman. There are few Helen Kellers out there. I think this woman and her siblings should get just compensation so that she may live out her life in good comfort but 10's of millions are not necessary. When we get socialized medicine you heavies had better watch out. I'll be in a movement to snatch that pork chop off your plate and substitute it for a health salad. - Christ are we to have no freedoms. can accidents be legislated out of existance.

One of the doctors said he was sure she wouldn't live long, and he thought that was probably for the best.

She is stronger than I am; I'd beg someone to end my life after something like that.

She will NEVER be on "easy street", no matter how much money she has. And Herold's lawyer is trying to claim it as a workmen's comp case?

But - Sandy Herold "hopes and prays" for a speedy recovery, so that makes everything all right.

Bull@!$%#.

StoneCold - Precisely!

Exactly! I hardly think she's going to take her "winnings" and cruise around the world....most likely, there will be literally hundreds of excruciating surgeries. Herold had no business owning a wild animal; she's totally responsible for this happening (and the state, if they knew she was breaking the law). People say no one forced Charla Nash to come over....true. But, the chimp had escaped...what if it had mauled some unsuspecting kid walking down the street? Then would it be OK to sue for millions?

You may want to check your spelling.........Oprah

There is something very wrong with this story. She sues due to the horrific injuries, however; the attorneys will get 65% of the award. How does this help the injured woman? Who has paid the astronomic costs of her surgeries and health care, up to this exploitation?

My guess is that the State has already paid substantial amount, and will continue to pay throughout her lifetime. Why should some greedy attorney be enriched by the government?

I am not without compassion, but am realistic. Her lifetime of medical care will be paid for by the State. So, under the new social health insurance policy; this is a pre-existing condition. This is a terrible injury and personnal injustice for her and her family. I pray for her, but I am tapped out and can not (will not) contribute to her healthcare.

Outrageous amounts are asked for in hopes that a large settlement will come out of it. It's all a game. People sue for nothing and at the drop of a hat, but this woman's life is ruined. She can't see, eat or do most anything. Her hands were ripped off. I don't begrudge her anything she can get. People who keep exotic animals take chances and in this case they will pay, and should. My compassion goes to the injured woman.

"There is something very wrong with this story. She sues due to the horrific injuries, however; the attorneys will get 65% of the award."

First of all, attorney's fees are capped by law. Usually the limit is 35%, but it may be different in CT.

Second, the attorneys put out all the expenses and court costs, do all the investigation, depositions, legal research, etc.

While 35% may sound like a lot, it does allow someone who can't afford to pay a lawyer get competent representation.

You're an idot.

ronald - STFU you callous a$$hole.

Ronald - You are one cold POS.

trick or treat!

Ronald. Dude I'll have to assume that you're either a 13 year old boy who thinks anything is funny, or a really sick fool. I'd use some other thoughts but I think you'd like it too much.

Ronald, you are just plain stupid. Shame on you.

I just hope that whatever she wins, from whatever source, is handled and dispersed through a trustee and not the family, especially if it's a very large sum.

A judge can require that, can't they? Does anybody know?

I'm just thinking of all of the fighting that is going on over Michael Jackson's estate. Happens all the time in all kinds of families...it's just too tempting.

"I feel that the money should mainly come from the chimp's owner. Everything she has should be taken away"

Have you seen her?? She looks like she doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. What are they going to take away - her double-wide?

Actually, she has quite a lot in assets and properties. If I am correct, the victim's family is pretty wealthy as well.

Apparently the owner of the chimp owns some properties. It doesn't appear she's poor at all. The reason for the suit against the state was they banned the private ownership of chimps, but allowed this chimp to stay. They also had been told by an animal behaviorist that the chimp was dangerous but took no action.

She has a number of assets including a thriving towing business. This woman needs to lose everything she owns. She has accepted zero responsibility for what her chimp did to her FRIEND. Some friend.

Lets not forget Nash went there willingly, its not like she showed up at someone house and didn't know they had a wild animal. She even stated she was afraid of the animal. She also has to accept some responsibility.

Yeah, but how many of us, when asked for a favor by a friend, would do it? You don't consider all the why's and wherefore's, you just respond to your friend in need.

Your right you sometimes just respond to a friend, but than accept responsibility. Don't try to sue the State for a situation you put yourself in.

If you get into a car with a drunk drive (and you know they are drunk) and they get into an accident should you really be suing or do you accept responsibility for your decision.

Cat - excellent point. This woman knew the chimp was dangerous.

John Graziano's family is suing for millions to pay for his lifetime care, but he did get in the car with Hulk Hogan's son. The son was not known for his careful driving habits.

I feel horrible that this happened to this woman but really - why isn't she taking any personal responsibility?

What sort of responsiblity is she suppose to take Teena Breci? It sounds like you're saying this was her fault.

Kmac, she shouldn't have been messing with a dangerous animal to begin with. The issue here is that she's trying to hold the innocent taxpayers responsible, when they had nothing to do with it. $50 million from the lady with the chimp? Go for it, she should never have endangered others that way. $150 million from people that have done absolutely nothing to you? Greed, plain and simple.

too bad dave wasnt mauled... that would sky rocket the ratings for sure!

Oh, please...Johnny Carson had those wild animals on his show about once a month, and he certainly wasn't hurting for ratings. It's a crowd favorite, that's why they do it. And they 1) are insured; 2) have an expert animal handler on stage; 3) make sure the animals are mildly tranquilized, if needed; and 4) you can damn well bet that there are people with both tranquilizer guns and firearms just out of sight in case something goes wrong.

Yes, that was a shame about the chimp...it wasn't his fault. The only thing I feel bad for about Herold is that she had to stab it to try to get it off of Ms. Nash. Rightly or wrongly (well, wrongly), this was her "child".

I hit a deer with my car a few years ago. What is the gov't going to do about this? Couldn't they have prevented this situation for me?

I agree suing the state is absurd.

Her "child"? Give me a break. Something is seriously wrong with people who keep wild animals as pets. Sometimes you hear about the animal turning on its owner and killing him/her. Sorry; no sympathy from this quarter.

She gave the chimp the Xanax (not prescribed for him) in order to try and calm him down. Stupid ass apparently had no idea that Xanax could actually make him worse. She just assumed he would react like a human. Dumbass woman.

Hell, plenty of humans don't take too well to Xanax either.

:)

Charla, in fact, has stated that she was afraid of the chimp. It had actually pulled a large chunk of her hair out once. However, she was very familiar with it and when her friend called and asked for her help, she went anyway. Said friend, apparently, doesn't give a damn about her now.

In fairness to the owner...she really tried.

If the idiot owner had not had the chimp in the first place, this would not have occurred. She should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter at the very least. People and their god-damned animals...

right on, most types of animals belong in their natural settings, not as pets!

Where the state comes into it is that they had received reports from experts stating that the animal was dangerous and could do some serious damage. Those reports apparently were not acted on. There was also some issue of permits, that should have been in place, but weren't and the state knew that as well. I still think the major chunk of money should come from the chimp's owner. She was having increasing problems controlling him yet invited someone over to "help" her lure him back into the house.

As I said in another post. Nash went there willingly, she didn't arrive at someone house not knowing there was a wild animal there. She even stated that she was afraid of the animal. She has to accept some of the responsibility.

But cat, what if it had just been a little kid walking down the street? I see your point, though. Not that I blame Ms. Nash in any way, and I understand she just wanted to help her friend, but if she did in fact fear this animal, I'm surprised that she went over there.

I if was afraid of any of my friends' pets, I really don't think I'd have gone over there....for any reason. "Hell to the no!"

If this had been someone just walking by and this happened then they are not responsible in any way. But Nash knew and feared this animal. I live in Connecticut and alot of people are going to suffer if she wins this type of lawsuit. I feel very sorry for her but you have to think about what your doing.

I worked for a company that sold shredding machines. A women brought her 4 year old son to work and put him in front of the shredder and told him to shred paper. She figured this would keep him entertained. Well like 4 year old do, he explored the machine and put his figures in. It was horrible he lost the tips of 4 fingers. She sued our company claiming there was not a sign on it saying it wasn't for children. We settled out of court because we knew jury sympathy would be high. The owners of the company request the money be put into trust for the child's medical bills and future (not sure if that happened). But in reality she was negligent . She made a stupid decision, of course in this case her son suffered.

People have to be responsible for their own decisions.

Conn. is a f*(&^% up state anyway and ya you're going to have to pay big because it's the state's responsibility for the public's safety especially in cases like this, not in spite of...

:)

Oprah is looking a mite rough, isn't she?

She is one homely woman great makeup person really helps her must go into makeup room at 5AM and I think they use autobody filler to patch her up

Ok that was funny Tedster. Terrible story though. My heart goes out to that poor woman. Wild animals are not pets. People are so dumb.

It was pretty funny Tedster.

I don't think anyone is holding a gun to the guests heads and saying that they have no choice but to appear. If they didn't want to be on TV then they wouldn't do it. The same argument could be said for porn stars. No matter how much some might disapprove they have chosen to exploit themselves for one reason or another.

Charla Nash wanted to tell her story. As graphic as it may be it's the truth of the matter. This is what she looks like. If people can't handle it then they should change the channel. But Oprah wouldn't have these guests if they weren't willing to come on. So if you find it reprehensible Oprah can't take all of the blame. and don't forget that the network allows it too.

But you can't lay all the blame on Oprah and the networks. Save some finger-pointing for the viewers. Do you think the networks would put on shows like this, and Jerry Springer, Nancy Grace, Jane Velez and the rest of the video equivalents of the supermarket tabloids; if they didn't figure the viewers would tune in? I hate to admit it, but I watched Oprah yesterday.