Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp.
| Citation | 452 So.2d 370 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | PHILCO-FORD,No. 83,83 |
| Parties | Alice H. JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of Beverly Henry, et al. v.CORP., Et Al. CA 0057. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Raymond L. Simmons, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant Alice H. Jones, Administratrix of the Estate of Beverly Henry, et al.
Paul Marks, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees Capital City South and Willie Spooner, Jr.
Eugene R. Groves, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee Gulf States Utilities Co.
Calvin E. Hardin, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees G.T.E. Products Corp. and Philco-Ford Corp.
Grayson H. Brown, Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellee Travelers Indem. Co.
Before COVINGTON, LOTTINGER, PONDER, WATKINS and CARTER, JJ.
We granted a rehearing because our attention was correctly called to the fact that the minutes of court reveal that the exception of no right of action filed to both the wrongful death and survivorship claims was maintained, rather than overruled, as we had originally stated. There is no doubt that the trial court was correct in finding Mrs. Alice H. Jones was not a proper party plaintiff in her original petition. However, after further consideration, we hold that sufficient notice was given by the Original Petition to effect an interruption of prescription and that the Supplemental and Amended Petition indicated Mrs. Jones possessed a right of action. Therefore, we reinstate our original decision.
The classes of beneficiaries set forth in LSA-C.C. art. 2315 are exclusive and must be strictly construed. As article 2315 does not list successions or succession representatives as beneficiaries for purposes of a wrongful death claim, a succession representative of the person whose wrongful death is sued upon lacks the right of action to pursue such a claim. Cullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 428 So.2d 1231 (La.App.3d Cir.1983), writs denied 433 So.2d 180, 181 (1983). Likewise, a succession representative of the decedent lacks the right of action to pursue a survivorship claim. Whittington v. Hopfensitz, 321 So.2d 836 (La.App. 1st Cir.1975).
However, as we noted in our original opinion, a Supplemental and Amended Petition was filed on March 4, 1982, in which Alice H. Jones appeared as Administratrix of the Estates of Beverly Henry and Corey Henry, and as Tutrix of the minor children, Rhonda Henry, Bruce Henry, and Herley Henry. Although the Supplemental and Amended Petition was filed more than one year after the date of the alleged deaths of Beverly Henry and Corey Henry, the Supplemental and Amended Petition appears to have been filed by a party possessing a right of action, no evidence having been introduced by the defendants to the contrary.
Thus, the sole question is whether or not the filing of the Supplemental and Amended Petition, filed after prescription had run, relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition, which was filed within the one year prescriptive period. Although there may be some authority tending to produce a contrary result, we adhere to the reasoning of our original opinion, that "the elemental basis of legal interruption of liberative prescription in tort suits is informing the defendant of the legal demand." Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., 276 So.2d 262 (La.1973). In other words, the basic test is sufficiency of notice to the defendant. In Nini, it was held suit for workers' compensation filed on behalf of a dead man furnished sufficient notice. Further, in Nettles v. Great American Insurance Co., 155 So.2d 87 (La.App.1st Cir.1963), cert. denied 244 La. 1024, 156 So.2d 227 (1963), we held that sufficient notice was afforded by the filing of suit by the father of a man who had attained the age of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel
...or that he sue in the proper procedural capacity." Id. (citing Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp., 441 So.2d 1251, on rehearing, 452 So.2d 370, 371 (La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.1983), writs denied, 457 So.2d 1193, 1198 (La.1984)).4 Even if there are multiple defendants, the general rule is that " '[i]f the ......
-
Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...year limitation period applicable to survival actions has been held to be peremptive rather than prescriptive. Jones v. Philco–Ford Corp., 452 So.2d 370 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writs denied,457 So.2d 1193 (La.1984)and457 So.2d 1198 (La.1984); and McClendon v. State, 357 So.2d 1218 (La.App. ......
-
Ayo v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., JOHNS-MANVILLE
...which would entitle him to bring suit. Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp., 441 So.2d 1251 (La.Ct.App.1983), original opinion reinstated, 452 So.2d 370 (La.Ct.App.1984); Lynch v. Foster, 376 So.2d 342 (La.Ct.App.), writ denied, 378 So.2d 433 (La.1979). This is the Louisiana doctrine of contra non va......
-
Barber v. Emp'rs Ins. Co. of Wausau
...Indemnity Co., 00–333 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/18/00), 772 So.2d 797,writ denied,00–3156 (La.2/9/01), 785 So.2d 822;Jones v. Philco–Ford Corp., 452 So.2d 370, 372 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writs denied,457 So.2d 1193 and 1198 (La.1984); McClendon v. State, 357 So.2d 1218, 1223 (La.App. 1st Cir.1978). ......