Carr v. Mississippi Val. Elec. Co., 5745
| Citation | 285 So.2d 301 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 5745,5745 |
| Parties | Frank P. CARR v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Gerald J. Martinez, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.
James, J. Morse, Jr., Geoffrey H. Longenecker, W. Paul Anderson, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before GULOTTA and GAUDIN, JJ., and ZACCARIA, J. Ad Hoc.
This is an appeal from a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action and dismissing plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff has taken this devolutive appeal.
The only issue before this court is the applicability of Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2772 to tort actions. The lower court, by its dismissal of plaintiff's suit has indicated that it does apply to torts.
Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2772 reads as follows:
A. No action whether ex contractu, ex delicto or otherwise, to recover on a contract or to recover damages shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection or observation of construction or the construction of an improvement to immovable property:
(1) More than ten years after the date of registry in the mortgage office of acceptance of the work by owner; or
(2) If no such acceptance is recorded within six months from the date the owner has occupied or taken possession of the improvement, in whole or in part, more than ten years after the improvement has been thus occupied by the owner; or
(3) If the person furnishing the design and planning does not perform any inspection of the work, more than ten years after he has completed the design and planning with regard to actions against that person.
B. The causes which are preempted within the time described above include any action:
(1) For any deficiency in the design, planning, inspection, supervision or observation of construction or in the construction of an improvement to immovable property;
(2) For damage to property, movable or immovable, arising out of any such deficiency;
(3) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency; and
(4) Any action brought against a person for the action or failure to act of his employees.
This pre-emptive period shall extend to every demand whether brought by direct action or for contribution or indemnity or by third party practice, and whether brought by the owner or by any other person.
The clear language contained in the first line of Paragraph 'A' states that the statute applies to actions 'ex delicto' as well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regents of University of California v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...... Note also Superior Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Cameron (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 488, 494, 70 ... (1973) 89 Nev. 293, 511 P.2d 113; Carr v. Mississippi Valley Elec. Co. (La.App.1973) 285 So.2d ......
-
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc.
...... Trahan Holinga, Baton Rouge, for Dow Chemical Co., Union Carbide Corp., Ethyl Corporation, Amicus ...Mississippi River Grain Elevator, Inc., 264 So.2d 246 ... JCI's reliance on cases such as Carr v. Mississippi Valley Elec. Co., 285 So.2d 301 ......
-
Pacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
...... by the courts of constitutionality: Louisiana, Carr v. Mississippi Valley Elec. Co., 285 So.2d 301 ......
-
Harris v. Black Clawson Co.
...of an immovable from being brought more than ten years after the completion of the work performed. Carr v. Mississippi Valley Elec. Co., 285 So.2d 301 (La.Ct.App.1973). The peremptive 13 period runs from the date of registry of acceptance by the owner in the mortgage records or from six mon......