196 So. 3d 142
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Terri and Betty Clark sued the City/Parish (East Baton Rouge) claiming recurring flooding and sewage backups damaged a rental property, alleging defects in storm drains and improperly installed/maintained Liberty pumps.
- Original petition (filed March 9, 2005) alleged specific floods in Dec 2000, Aug 2001, Mar 2002, and generally alleged the problem occurred "on a number of occasions past and since," plus continued damages and a March 9, 2004 engineer report blaming drainage and the pump.
- The trial court required pleadings to be clarified; the Clarks filed successive amended petitions adding incidents and dates in 2003–2005 and alleging multiple subsequent pump installations and service calls (through March 2005).
- The City/Parish filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing the one-year prescriptive period barred claims arising before March 9, 2005 and that later amendments did not "relate back" to the original petition.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed all claims with prejudice; on appeal the Clarks conceded claims before March 9, 2004 had prescribed but argued the amendments relating to on-or-after March 9, 2004 damages related back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153.
- The appeals court concluded the original petition gave fair notice of ongoing, recurring flooding caused by defective drains/pumps, so amendments clarifying later incidents related back; claims before March 9, 2004 remain prescribed, claims on/after that date survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended petition claims (post-March 9, 2004) relate back to the original petition under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 | Amended claims arise from the same conduct/occurrence (ongoing flooding due to defective drains/pumps) so Article 1153 relation-back applies | Original petition only listed old dates (2000–2002); later incidents alleged in amendments are new and untimely and original did not give fair notice, so no relation back | Court held amendments relate back: original petition provided fair notice of ongoing problem; claims on/after March 9, 2004 are timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Winford v. Conerly Corp., 897 So.2d 560 (La. 2005) (Article 1153 should be applied liberally to avoid barring actions when original pleading gave notice)
- Reese v. State Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 866 So.2d 244 (La. 2004) (focus on what original pleading included; relation back if original gave fair notice)
- McKenzie v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 122 So.3d 42 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2013) (standard of review for prescription determinations)
- Cawley v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 65 So.3d 235 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (de novo review for pure legal issues)
- TCC Contractors, Inc. v. Hospital Service District No. 3, 52 So.3d 1103 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2010) (review standards on legal questions)
- Raborn v. Albea, 144 So.3d 1066 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (relation-back inquiry requires that original petition give fair notice)
- Thomas v. Mobil Oil Corp., 901 So.2d 1182 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (original petition’s use of present/present perfect tenses can show ongoing harm and provide notice)
- Baker v. Conagra Broiler Co., 640 So.2d 494 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994) (relation-back principles and liberal construction to preserve actions)