Dugas v. Works
61 So. 3d 826
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dugas plaintiffs sued Bayou Teche Water Works, Inc. and its insurer for damages from Bayou Teche’s alleged brine discharge into an Iberia Parish irrigation canal.
- Trial court granted Bayou Teche’s peremptory prescription exception and dismissed the claims.
- Record on appeal is notably sparse regarding the evidentiary basis for prescription, with most facts drawn from the petition.
- Petition asserts Bayou Teche unlawfully discharged brine in violation of environmental rules, causing farming and land damages.
- Bayou Teche moved to dismiss on the basis of La.R.S. 9:5624 (public works damages prescription).
- The appellate court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims prescribed under La.R.S. 9:5624. | Dugas argues no public works prescription; there is insufficient evidence of a public works project or public purpose. | Bayou Teche contends the damages were for a public work project and subject to two-year prescription. | Prescription is not conclusive on the record; remand for factual development. |
| Whether the trial court relied on improper factual findings to apply 9:5624. | Record lacks proof that Bayou Teche is a covered entity or that the damages were for a public purpose. | Trial court need only consider the pleaded facts; evidentiary burden on plaintiff. | Trial court’s factual findings are unsupported; remand for proper factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624 (La.1992) (burden shifts when prescription is evident on face of pleadings)
- Younger v. Marshall Ind., Inc., 618 So.2d 866 (La.1993) (burden shifts to plaintiff if prescription appears on pleadings)
- Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1383 (La.1993) (prescription burden and related standards cited)
- Eastin v. Entergy Corp., 865 So.2d 49 (La.2004) (sets standards for reviewing prescription issues)
- London Towne Condo. Homeowner’s Ass’n v. London Towne Co., 939 So.2d 1227 (La.2006) (administrative aspects of prescription reviews in condominium cases)
- Dauzart v. Fin. Indent. Ins. Co., 39 So.3d 802 (La.App. 3 Cir.2010) (discusses standard of review when no evidence is introduced on prescription)