Hines v. BROWNING-FERRIS, INC., 73 So. 3d 479

Hines sustained serious injuries in a work-related accident on October 24, 2007 at a BFI landfill while operating a dump truck.
Hines's wife, Lassie King Hines, sued BFI and Scott Construction in 2008, alleging maintenance faults caused the brake malfunction.
BFI sought indemnification from Scott; the tort claim against BFI was voluntarily dismissed in 2009.
Plaintiffs amended the petition in September 2009 to add Norwel Equipment Co. for maintenance work six months before the accident.
Norwel moved for prescription and for summary judgment; plaintiffs opposed, offering an expert report and an affidavit.
The trial court denied Norwel’s prescription exception and related motions; on appeal, the court reversed and dismissed Norwel with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prescription was interrupted against Norwel by suit against timely sued defendants.	Hines contends interruption occurred under Art. 2324(C) due to solidary/joint liability with timely sued defendants.	Norwel argues no interruption because timely sued defendants were dismissed, eliminating any solidary obligation.	Prescription was not interrupted; Norwel's exception of prescription was sustained and claims dismissed.
Whether contra non valentem applies to suspend prescription in this case.	Plaintiffs argue discovery of Norwel's role after the one-year period tolls prescription under the discovery rule.	Norwel contends no exceptional circumstances; discovery rule does not apply because information was obtainable earlier.	Contra non valentem does not apply; information available prior to expiration did not justify tolling.
Whether the undated expert report and related affidavit were admissible and created a genuine issue of material fact.	The report shows a genuine issue about Norwel's causation and supports liability.	The report is hearsay, undated, and not Daubert-compliant; it should be struck.	The court found the report admissible for purposes of the prescription issue but ultimately reversed on prescription.

Renfroe v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 809 So.2d 947 (La. 2002) (interruptions depend on timely suit and solidary/ joint liability relations)
Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (timely sued defendant's dismissal may destroy interruption against others)
Morris v. Westside Transit Line, 841 So.2d 920 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (contra non valentem exceptional circumstances discussed)
Kroger Co. v. LG Barcus & Sons, Inc., 2 So.3d 1163 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (discovery rule analysis in prescription interruption)
Campo v. Correa, 828 So.2d 502 (La. 2002) (knowledge or notice triggers prescription start; inquiry scope)