Louisiana Changes Prescriptive Periods for Survival and Wrongful Death Actions

Until recently, tort claims in Louisiana were subject to a one-year prescriptive period.* In Carollo v. Tulane Univ., the plaintiff’s claim was subject to that one-year prescriptive period, but she filed her suit more than one year after she was injured. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as prescribed. In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that her execution of a waiver form prevented her from timely filing suit for her alleged injuries.

The plaintiff was a member of Tulane’s Swim and Dive Team. As a team member, she signed Tulane’s Concussion Education Form, which concluded with the following statement: “I understand that this release means that, among other things, I am giving up my right to sue the institution for any such losses, damages, injury, or costs that I may incur.” Plaintiff sustained a concussion during practice on January 9, 2021. In her Petition, she alleged she discovered the full extent of her injuries on August 5, 2021. However, she did not file suit until February 17, 2023, which was beyond the one-year prescription period.

When a claim is prescribed on the face of the petition, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove her claim is not prescribed. Carollo first argued (1) the Concussion Education Form was a contract, (2) her claim arose from that contract, and (3) personal claims under contracts should be subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499. The court rejected this argument because the concussion form did not meet the requirements for a valid contract under Louisiana law.

The plaintiff then argued that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply. This doctrine provides “prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which their cause of action is based and applies an exception to the statutory prescriptive period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues.”

Contra non valentem can apply when there is some condition coupled with a contract that prevented the plaintiff from filing suit. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments asserting this theory. Even if Carollo could establish a contract with Tulane under the concussion form, she could not point to any physical, mental, or procedural condition that prevented her from investigating her tort claims and filing suit against it.

Contra non valentem can also apply when the defendant does some act effectually to prevent the plaintiff from availing herself from her cause of action. The plaintiff argued that she was forced to sign the concussion form as a member of the Swim and Dive Team and that the form prevented her from filing suit within the prescriptive period. The court also rejected this argument, holding the plaintiff “knew about her concussion related injuries but did not perform her due diligence within the prescriptive period to determine whether she could file suit.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s execution of a waiver form stating she agreed not to sue the defendant for injuries could not interrupt prescription for the plaintiff’s claim.

*La. C.C. art. 3493.1, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, now provides delictual actions/tort claims are subject to a liberative prescription of two years.

References:

Carollo v. Tulane Univ., 2024-0038 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 52557.

In Louisiana, a “statutory employer” is entitled to protection from tort suit. With limited exceptions, the defense must be supported by a contractual provision declaring the defendant to be a statutory employer in a manner consistent with La. RS 23:1061. In Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Turner Industries Group, LLC, 2019-0309, 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2019), the defendant-premises owner successfully asserted the defense, notwithstanding multiple issues with respect to the nature and terms of the agreement and an alleged lack of privity with the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

In Spears, the plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the production floor at the Exxon plastics plant. Spears filed suit against multiple parties, including Exxon, alleging it failed to provide a safe premises. The plaintiff worked for Poly Trucking who operated at Exxon under a contract with Polly-America. Poly-America, LP and Exxon, in turn, were signatories to an agreement entitled "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" which stated that Polly-America was to:

"… provide pickup/delivery service… For all containers of Polyethylene scrap as well as Polyethylene's scrap recovery vacuum service for a quoted amount of one dollar.”

The "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" also contained a section expressly recognizing Exxon:

“… as the statutory employer of employees of Poly America and subcontractors while such employees are engaged in the contracted work.”

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment based upon its status as Spears’ statutory employer. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed Exxon with prejudice. On appeal, Spears argued that the contract between Exxon and Poly-America presented multiple issues of fact and law which necessitated a reversal of the summary judgment. The issues identified by the plaintiff included the following:

1. The agreement upon which Exxon relied was a “Contract of Sale,” not a “Contract for Services;”
2. The agreement specified that the signatory contractor (Poly America) was an "Independent Contractor;"
3. The plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was neither a signatory to, nor specifically identified anywhere in the agreement; and,
4. Although the agreement designated Exxon as the statutory employer of the “employees of Poly America,” Exxon is not specifically designated as the statutory employer of the employees of Poly Trucking, the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal expressly rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments.

First, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate that the contract containing the statutory employment language be of any particular type. As such, whether the contract was considered a contract of sale or for services was irrelevant.

Secondly, the Court rejected the claim that contractual language describing Exxon as an “independent contractor” required a rejection of the statutory defense. The Spears Court reasoned that nothing in La. RS 23:1061 prevents an independent contractor from entering into a written agreement whereby the principal to that contract is recognized as the statutory employer of the employees of the contractor and its subcontractors.

Finally, the Court rejected the claim the defense should be rejected because the plaintiff’s immediate employer was not a party to the contract. As discussed in Spears, the law provides that the contract establishing statutory employment can be with either the plaintiff’s immediate employer or the plaintiff’s statutory employer, and Poly America qualified as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under the “two contract” theory because the work that Poly America subcontracted to the plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was included within Poly America’s “STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER” contract with Exxon.

The Spears opinion highlights that the statutory defense should be maintained, even under unusual facts, when the requirements of La. RS 23:1061 are satisfied.

As an integral theme to his best-selling novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell once used the slogan: “Big Brother is Watching You.” This slogan embodied the idea that a person’s actions and intentions are being monitored by the government as a means of controlling and suppressing the will of the populace.

Although not as extreme as Orwell’s dystopian novel, Louisiana families will now be able to install video monitoring systems in their loved ones’ nursing home rooms pursuant to Act 596 of the 2018 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. According to the “Nursing Home Virtual Visitation Act,” nursing homes can not prohibit the cameras or retaliate against residents who want to install them. The video systems will monitor residents who often cannot speak for themselves.

However, several requirements must be met to abide by the Act:

1. The resident, or family if the resident lacks capacity, must provide notice of installation to the facility;
2. Visual recordings must include date and time;
3. The device must be stationary and fixed, not oscillating;
4. Residents must pay all costs for installation, upkeep, and removal;
5. Written consent is required from all roommates;
6. Room changes are required if a roommate does not consent;
7. Residents and applicants cannot be retaliated against for authorizing devices; and
8. Signage must be installed at the front door of the facility (at the facility’s cost) and at the resident’s room (at the resident’s cost) advising of surveillance in the rooms.

Furthermore, nursing homes must provide forms to nursing home residents, or their legal guardians, outlining the ways the cameras can be installed. Under the Act, surveillance should be addressed at admission as a resident right. To promote compliance, the Act prohibits the use of any recordings in litigation when the device was installed or used without the nursing home’s knowledge or used without adherence to the required forms. Additionally, compliance with the Act is a complete defense against lawsuits brought purely because monitoring devices are in use.

Nursing facilities and the families of residents and patients should take care to comply with all of the requirements in the act to ensure that the video footage is actually admissible and that the facilities are not opening themselves to privacy lawsuits from other residents. “Big Brother” might not be watching, but the increase in affordable, high quality, surveillance cameras, coupled with the Virtual Visitation Act, means nursing facilities should anticipate that someone could be watching very soon.