Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
145 So. 3d 237
La.2014Background
- Survival action time limit under Art. 2315.1(A) is the central question, whether prescriptive or peremptive.
- Plaintiff Watkins filed a survival action on June 17, 2011, for decedent Hicks, who died December 27, 1986.
- Defendants argued the one-year period is peremption and thus untimely since filed over a year after death.
- The 1986 legislative amendment separated survival and wrongful death actions, creating Art. 2315.1 and 2315.2 (survival and wrongful death respectively).
- The trial court held peremption; the court of appeal reversed, holding the period is liberative prescription; the supreme court affirmed the court of appeal and remanded.
- Dissent argued the period remains peremptive; the decision thus centers on statutory interpretation of Art. 2315.1(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the one-year period for Art. 2315.1 survival action is prescriptive or peremptive. | Watkins argued the period is prescriptive. | Exxon and others argued the period is peremptive and not renounceable. | Prescriptive (liberative prescription). |
| What version of Article 2315.1(C) applies and its effect on the period. | The applicable law is the 1986 amendment treating the period as prescriptive. | The period should be treated as peremptive based on prior law and language. | The period is a one-year liberative prescription under Art. 2315.1(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Guidry v. Theriot, 377 So.2d 319 (La. 1979) (distinguished survival vs wrongful death; survival peremptive prior to 1986 amendment)
- Succession of Roux v. Guidry, 182 So.2d 109 (La.App. 4 Cir.1966) (peremption vs prescription lineage for survival action (predecessor law))
- Walls v. American Optical Corp., 740 So.2d 1262 (La. 1999) (separates survival and wrongful death as distinct, timing origin differs)
- Barber v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 97 So.3d 454 (La.App. 1 Cir.2013) (appellate discussion on survival/wrongful death time limitations)
- Adams v. Asbestos Corp., 930 So.2d 342 (La.App. 2 Cir.2006) (jurisprudential treatment of limitations for survival-related actions)
- Courtland v. Century Indem. Co., 772 So.2d 797 (La.App. 5 Cir.2000) (discussion of time limitations for related actions)