163 So. 3d 66
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Darrell Turner sued Hidden Lake, LLC and its insurer Liberty after slipping on water from a leaking window air-conditioning unit in his apartment; original petition (filed July 20, 2012) alleged an August 14, 2011 fall.
- Turner filed a first supplemental and amending petition (Dec. 28, 2012) adding an October 1, 2011 second fall and alleging the unit leaked continuously after the first fall, causing ongoing and additional injuries.
- Defendants filed a peremptory exception of prescription to the supplemental petition, arguing the October 1 claim was filed after the one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions.
- Turner argued the continuing tort doctrine interrupted prescription and/or that the supplemental petition related back to the original pleading because both arise from the same leaking AC unit.
- The trial court granted the exception and dismissed the October 1 claims; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no continuing tort and no relation back to the original petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuing tort doctrine interrupted prescription | Turner: ongoing leak caused continuous damages, so prescription was interrupted | Defs: two discrete falls; no continuous action/damage pled | Held: No — plaintiff failed to allege continuous damage in original petition; continuing tort not established |
| Whether the supplemental petition "relates back" under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 | Turner: supplemental claims arise from same conduct (leaky AC) and thus relate back | Defs: original petition did not give fair notice of ongoing leak or the Oct. 1 event | Held: No — original petition did not provide sufficient notice; amendment does not relate back |
| Whether dismissal for prescription was proper after evidence at exception hearing | Turner: factual record supports continuous leak and relation back | Defs: evidence shows separate events; exception appropriate | Held: Affirmed — trial court’s factual conclusions not manifestly erroneous |
| Whether the record raised a possible "eggshell plaintiff" causation issue | Turner: second fall aggravated earlier injuries (argued on appeal) | Defs: prescription and pleading failures control | Held: Majority declined to reach this causation inquiry; concurrence noted record insufficient to decide and would not fully bar claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 732 So.2d 61 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999) (standards for trying peremptory exceptions with evidence)
- Risin v. D.N.C. Investments, L.L.C., 921 So.2d 133 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (explaining one-year prescriptive period and continuing tort exception)
- Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532 (La. 1992) (continuing tort doctrine requires continuous conduct and continuous damage)
- South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Texaco Inc., 418 So.2d 531 (La. 1982) (prescription runs until continuous conduct causing damage is abated)
- Reese v. State, Dep’t of Public Safety and Corrections, 866 So.2d 244 (La. 2004) (relation-back requires original pleading to give fair notice of the factual situation in the amendment)
- Schnell v. Mendoza, 105 So.3d 874 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (summary of Louisiana fact-pleading rules and notice requirements)