Johnson v. Ledeoux

Decision Date16 May 2007
Docket NumberNo. 42,090-CA.,42,090-CA.
Citation957 So.2d 911
PartiesMildred K. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Charles Joseph LEDOUX, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Nelson, Zentner, Sartor, & Snellings, by: Allison M. Jarrell, David H. Nelson, Monroe, for Appellant.

Hudson, Potts, & Bernstein, by Mark J. Neal, Johnny R. Huckabay, II, Monroe, for Appellees.

Before BROWN, CARAWAY, and DREW, JJ.

BROWN, Chief Judge.

Lessor, Charles Ledoux, and his insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, have appealed from the trial court's judgment awarding damages to lessee, Johnson & Johnson Sales, Inc. The trial court specifically found that the roof of the leased premises collapsed during a "low" wind storm because "Defendant's contractual mandated maintenance was not performed—thus, the contract of lease was breached." For the following reasons, we reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

Johnson & Johnson Sales, Inc., was a window and door glass manufacturing and sales corporation. It was operated by Robert Johnson. In 1990 when Johnson's health began to fail, the company suspended operations and leased a building from Ledoux to store its inventory and equipment. In 1991, Robert Johnson died. For the next 12 years, the Johnson children continued the lease. On March 12, 2003, the roof on the leased premises collapsed, damaging the contents. On March 1, 2004, the Johnson children and unopened succession filed this action against Ledoux; however, the petition was amended in May of 2005 to name the corporation as plaintiff and to add Ledoux's insurer, Employers Mutual, as a defendant. The original plaintiffs were dismissed, leaving Johnson & Johnson Sales, Inc., as sole plaintiff.

After the trial court's denial of an exception of prescription, the matter was tried, and the court rendered judgment in favor of Johnson & Johnson Sales, Inc., awarding $207,086.08 in damages, plus interest from the date of judicial demand until paid, together with all costs of the proceedings. It is from this judgment that defendants have appealed.

Discussion

Prescription

Defendants argue that the original petition alleged a tort action with a one-year prescriptive period, and the corporate plaintiff did not join the current suit via an amendment to the petition until May 16, 2005, more than two years after the roof collapsed.

The applicable prescriptive period is determined by the character of the action disclosed in the pleadings. Starns v. Emmons, 538 So.2d 275 (La.1989). The nature of the basic underlying action determines the appropriate prescriptive period. Fishbein v. LSU Health Sciences Center, 04-2482 (La.04/12/05), 898 So.2d 1260.

La. C.C.P. art. 1153 provides that when an action asserted in an amended petition arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading.

The court in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 475 So.2d 1040, 1044 (La.1985), summarized the law as to late-added plaintiffs as follows:

An amendment adding or substituting a plaintiff should be allowed to relate back if (1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) the defendant knew or should have known of the existence and involvement of the new plaintiff; (3) the new and old plaintiffs are sufficiently related so that the added or substituted party is not wholly new or unrelated; (4) the defendant will not be prejudiced in preparing and conducting his defense.

The trial court found that the pleadings characterized an action in contract. The initial petition did allege an action in tort; however, it also pled elements of a breach of contract which has a 10-year prescriptive limitation. Even so, the amendment adding the corporate plaintiff involved the same building collapse, property damage, defendant, and lease agreement. The original petition alleged the existence of the lease. Ledoux drafted the lease with the corporation as the lessee. Ledoux was aware of his potential liability when the roof collapsed. There was no prejudice to Ledoux or his insurer.

The Lease Agreement

A lease agreement, like other contracts, is the law between the parties. Corbello v. Iowa Production, et al., 02-0826 (La.02/25/03), 850 So.2d 686. The meaning and intent of the parties to a written instrument should be determined within the four corners of the document. Shoreline Gas, Inc. v. Grace Resources, Inc., 34,517 (La.App.2d Cir.04/04/01), 786 So.2d 137. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit, and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation need be made into the parties' intent. La. C.C. art.2046. Any doubt in the language of a contract that cannot be otherwise resolved must be interpreted against the party that furnished its text. La. C.C. art.2056; Louisiana Gaming Corp. v. Kayell Enterprises, Inc., 35,297 (La.App.2d Cir.12/05/01), 804 So.2d 736.

The lease as drafted by Ledoux contained the following provisions:

[L]essee does release and relieve lessor from liability, which might accrue to lessee by reasons of damages occasioned to the property and any products of lessee located or stored in or upon the premises.

Lessee further binds and obligates itself to hold harmless and to indemnify and to defend lessor from any and all claims whatsoever occasioned by reasons of the condition of the building or lessee's use thereof.

Lessor shall not be liable for any damage to person or property sustained by the lessee or any other persons, and any such liability is assumed by lessee.

[L]essor hereby waives any and all rights of recovery against Lessee, and all persons for whose actions Lessee is or may be responsible, for any loss by insured peril occurring to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Coleman v. Querbes Co. No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 15, 2017
    ..., 2015–0136 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So.3d 1227 ; Fishbein v. State , 2004–2482 (La. 4/12/05), 898 So.2d 1260 ; Johnson v. Ledoux , 42,090 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/16/07), 957 So.2d 911, writ denied , 2007–1482 (La. 10/5/07), 964 So.2d 946. In Starns v. Emmons , 538 So.2d 275 (La. 1989), a landlord sue......
  • Sitaram, Inc. v. Bryan Ins. Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 19, 2012
    ...determined by the character of the action disclosed in the pleadings. Starns v. Emmons, 538 So.2d 275 (La.1989); Johnson v. Ledoux, 42,090 (La.App.2d Cir.5/16/07), 957 So.2d 911,writ denied,2007–1482 (La.10/5/07), 964 So.2d 946. LSA–R.S. 9:5606 provides, in pertinent part: A. No action for ......
  • Roane v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 15, 2013
    ...846. The applicable prescriptive period is determined by the character of the action disclosed in the pleadings. Johnson v. Ledoux, 42,090 (La.App.2d Cir.5/16/07), 957 So.2d 911,writ denied,07–1482 (La.10/05/07), 964 So.2d 946. Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of o......
  • Roane v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • April 10, 2013
    ...The applicable prescriptive period is determined by the character of the action disclosed in the pleadings. Johnson v. Ledoux, 42,090 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/16/07), 957 So. 2d 911, writ denied, 07-1482 (La. 10/05/07), 964 So. 2d 946. Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT