Articles Posted in Negligence

The word prescription normally conjures up images of medicine and the slips of paper sometimes given to patients as they leave the doctor’s office. One thing people may be unaware of is that prescription carries an additional legal meaning in the state of Louisiana. In the legal field, prescription refers to the amount time within which a person may file a lawsuit. The beginning of this time period usually begins when the event associated with the claim occurred. In many states this limit is referred to as the ‘statute of limitations,’ but here in Louisiana that rule is called ‘prescription.’ One of the more confusing areas of prescription deals with whether or not the time limitation can be interrupted or extended.

La. C.C. art. 3462 sheds some light on this, and provides that “prescription is interrupted when . . . the obligee commences action against the obligor, in a court of competent jurisdiction.” This means that if someone brings a claim against a party, then the prescription period of any subsequent action against that same party is considered to have been interrupted. Further, La. C.C. art. 3463 provides that “[a]n interruption of prescription…continues as long as the (first) suit is pending.” This means that the interruption will continue until the prior suit is resolved. This seems clear enough, but another part of the Louisiana statute comes into play and places constraints on when an action is considered to have been interrupted. La. C.C. art. 3463 provides that “interruption is considered never to have occurred if the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses the action at any time either before the defendant has made any appearance of record or thereafter, or fails to prosecute the suit at the trial.”

Read altogether the Louisiana statutes seem to be saying that the filing of a lawsuit against a defendant will interrupt the prescription period of any subsequent actions against the same defendant, unless the first suit is voluntarily dismissed. If the first suit is voluntarily dismissed, then the second action’s prescription period will be considered to have never been interrupted, and will therefore prescribe within the normal allotted prescription period.

To bring a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must provide evidence to show, among other things, that the defendant’s actions caused the injury in question. Causation has two components, cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is the actual event that caused the harm. Proximate cause refers to the legal cause. The proximate cause element requires that the injury must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. That is, a reasonably prudent person would expect the outcome that has resulted in harm or injuries. Here we focus on the discussion of proximate cause, which is more difficult to establish than cause-in-fact in most cases.

Courts often use the well-established foreseeability test to determine proximate cause. The test looks at whether the harm resulting from an action could be predicted by a reasonable prudent person. If a reasonable person could have predicted harm or injuries, then the injuries are foreseeable and defendant’s actions is the proximate cause of the injuries and therefore should be liable. For example, it is foreseeable that throwing a baseball at someone could cause him head injuries; it is also foreseeable that having an open flame near gasoline could cause an explosion.

In a recent case from the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, the court applied the foreseeability test to determine proximate cause. The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim under Louisiana law, alleging that the defendants’ negligence in attempting to extinguish fire ultimately caused the oil spill and plaintiff’s resulting damages. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and concluded that the damages are too attenuated and distant from the defendants’ actions. Essentially, the court was saying that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible cause of foreseeability as required for proximate cause. The court agreed with the analyses of the district court, which stated that “in order for the defendants to foresee such result, they would have had to have anticipated that spraying water on the mobile offshore unit would cause the vessel to capsize and the connecting pipe to collapse, and the blowout preventer would not control the flow of hydrocarbons, and the discharge would flow abated for three months, and that the oil would flow fifty miles inland.” Each one of those specific event or coincidence must occur for the defendant’s injuries to result from them and the whole situation could not be predicted by a reasonable person.