James M. STEEL et al.
v.
AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY et al.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Writ denied. On the facts found, the result is correct.
BARHAM and TATE, JJ., concur and assign reasons.
DIXON, J., dissents from the denial.
CALOGERO, Justice (dissents).
The doctrine of contra non valentem has no application to malpractice cases, in my view. Furthermore we should consider whether Phelps v. Donaldson,
BARHAM and TATE, JJ. (concurring in Writ Denial).
Plaintiffs' suit for medical malpractice can only be said to arise out of their contractual relationship with their doctor. The surgery which is alleged to have caused permanent disability to plaintiffs' minor child came about under the doctor's contract to perform that surgery. This contract can be breached by negligent acts as well as intentional acts. A part of the doctor's contractual obligation was to use care, prudence and skill in his performance. Here it is alleged that the performance of the obligation was done in a negligent manner and that it caused damage to the plaintiffs and their minor child. This constitutes a suit for breach of contract. Any other conclusion is difficult to reach intellectually.
While a ten-year prescriptive period for personal injuries received because of the negligent performance of a contract may appear to be an exceedingly long period for such a case, the law makes no distinction. Phelps v. Donaldson,
