86 So. 3d 752
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Andrea Joseph alleges injury on August 1, 2001 from an elevator gate while working for the USPS.
- She filed a petition for damages on August 1, 2002 naming Elite, Elite’s insurer North American, and XYZ Elevator Manufacturer.
- Otis Elevator was added later as manufacturer of the elevator involved in the injury.
- Service on Otis was effected on February 24, 2011 (original petition) and March 23, 2011 (amended petition).
- Trial court granted Otis’s exceptions—prescription and insufficiency of service of process—and dismissed with prejudice on July 11, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescription governs whether Otis is timely sued. | Joseph argues relation back defeats prescription. | Otis argues claim prescribed on face; no valid relation back. | No relation back; prescription affirmed. |
| Whether service of Otis was properly perfected after amendments. | Joseph contends service timely due to amended petition. | Otis argues lack of timely service under Art. 1201(C)/1672(C) and no good cause. | Insufficiency of service and involuntary dismissal upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Berry, 30 So.3d 251 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (strict construction of prescription statute; burden shifting if prescribed on face)
- Williams v. Earl K. Long Medical Center, 40 So.3d 412 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (contemporary statement on prescription doctrine)
- In re Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Moses, 788 So.2d 1173 (La. 2001) (burden-shifting when prescription is interrupted or suspended)
- Raziano v. Lincoln Property Co., 520 So.2d 1213 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1988) (art. 1153 factors for relation back when identity changes)
- Hodges v. Republic Western Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 175 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (art. 1153 relation back analysis guidelines)
- Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983) (requirements for relation back; notice and prejudice considerations)
- Gallina v. Hero Lands Co., 859 So.2d 758 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (substitution of parties and interruption of prescription)
- Hill v. Shell Oil Co., 760 So.2d 511 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2000) (substituting a defendant does not interrupt prescription absent other means)
- Ayers v. Goodwill Industries, 870 So.2d 348 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (mere confusion or inadvertence not good cause for late service)