Court Finds Signing of Waiver Form Does Not Extend Prescriptive Period

The question addressed in MR Pittman Group, LLC versus Plaquemines Parish Government, 2015-0396 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/2/15) was whether the five-year peremptive period set by La. R.S. 9:5607 displaces Louisiana’s general one-year prescriptive period set by La. C.C. art. 3492, when applied to tort claims against design professionals. Finding a contractor’s claim against the project engineers prescribed, the MR Pittman court held that the one-year prescriptive period governs tort claims against design professionals.

La. R.S. 9:5607 explicitly provides a peremptive period that extinguishes all claims against architects, engineers and other design professionals five years after the project is completed, thus limiting design professional liability associated with the project. The MR Pittman plaintiff/contractor argued that the statute also eliminates the one-year prescriptive period and instead creates a special five-year prescriptive period, which allowed the contractor up to five years to bring its claim against the engineers to recover for delay and other extra costs allegedly resulting from deficiencies in the construction plans. This interpretation effectively expands tort liability by increasing the time period for bringing a tort claim from one to five years. In rejecting this argument, the MR Pittman court clarified that under the statute any claimant has no more than five years after project completion to bring suit against the design professional for any cause. However, a tort claimant still has only one year to file suit from the date he “knew or should have known” of damage caused by the alleged wrongful actions of the design professional.

A secondary question addressed in MR Pittman was the date of commencement of the one-year prescriptive period, which under La. C.C. 3492 commences to run from the day damage is sustained. The defendant/engineers argued that prescription commenced when the contractor first became aware of the alleged design deficiencies early in construction, as evidenced by the contractor’s notice to the owner of the deficiencies. The contractor argued that it could not fully appreciate its damages until the change orders were resolved later in the project. Citing Louisiana Supreme Court precedent holding that the quantum of damages need not be certain or fully incurred to trigger commencement of prescription, Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351, 354 (La. 1992), the court agreed with the engineers’ position and dismissed the claims.

In Rowland v. BASF, 20- 278 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/29/21), 2021 WL 1170326, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that a claim for death benefits filed by a widow whose husband died from an occupational disease was not prescribed, even though her deceased husband’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits would have been time-barred.

The claimant’s husband was exposed to asbestos from 1969 to 1989 while working for BASF. He was diagnosed with occupationally-related asbestos in 2001 and passed away on July 27, 2018. A claim for Workers’ compensation death benefits against BASF was filed on December 26, 2018.

BASF filed an “Exception of Prescription &/or Motion for Summary Judgment” and argued the widow’s claim was derivative of her husband’s cause of action. BASF contended that, because the employee’s claim would have been prescribed, her claim for death benefits also prescribed. In response, the claimant argued suit was timely because it was filed within one year of the employee’s death as required by La. R.S. 23:1031.1(F). The Worker’s compensation trial judge granted the exception of prescription.

The First Circuit reversed, accepting the claimant’s argument that the claim was timely because it was filed within one year of death. The court rejected BASF’s argument that the death benefit claim could be pursued only if the deceased husband had filed a Worker’s comp claim prior to his death.

In support of dismissal, BASF also cited La. R.S. 23:1231(A), which provides there is no right of action to pursue death benefits if the claim is not filed within two years of the employee’s last treatment. However, the Rowland court did not address this issue because BASF had not filed an Exception of No Right of Action and did not factually establish when the deceased employee last received treatment for asbestos. Moving forward, the viability of the claim will depend upon whether her husband died within two years of the last treatment related to the occupational disease.

A jury in the 16^th Judicial District Court awarded a garbage truck driver $8,307,050.00 in damages related to a September 16, 2016 accident with a train. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit reversed the decision in Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company– because the answers to the questions on the jury verdict form were inherently inconsistent.

A garbage truck driver (Thomas) sued BNSF, the company that maintained a railroad track in the Town of Baldwin. On September 16, 2016, Thomas turned too wide while crossing railroad tracks, and his left front tire dropped off wooden planks on the crossing. This caused his left front tire to become stuck between the tracks. Thomas immediately began reversing the truck, then pulled forward and began moving across the railroad tracks. At that time, a BNSF train was bearing down on the crossing, blaring its horn. Thomas accelerated but train struck the rear of his truck. Thomas was injured in the incident.

Thomas filed suit the merits in May of 2022, the jury was provided a verdict form with a series of questions to 1) assign fault between the BNSF and Thomas; 2) determine the proximate cause of the accident; and 3) state the amount of damages. The jury completed the form, and a judgment was rendered by the Court in favor of Thomas.

The jury found: 1) that Thomas was negligent; 2) but that Thomas’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident; 3) however, the jury then assigned Thomas 15% of the fault. BSNF challenged the judgment, claiming that the answers on the jury verdict form were inconsistent. If Thomas was at fault, but that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident, then how was he assigned a portion of the fault? Before a party can be assigned fault, the jury must find both that the party was negligent, and that party’s negligence is a proximate cause of the accident.

The court of appeal overturned the over $8 million verdict in favor of Thomas because it agreed that the jury verdict form answers were inconsistent. La. C.C.P. art. 1813(E) provides that when the answers on a jury verdict form are inconsistent with each other, then the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the form to the jury for further consideration or may order a new trial. The appellate court found that the jury could not both: 1) find that Thomas’ negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident; and 2) assign 15% fault to Thomas. Therefore, the verdict was vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.

The lawsuit will be tried again – to a different jury. Certainly a cautionary tale.

References:

Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company, 2023 CA 1209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/6/24).