Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.

• Decision Date: 26 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2001-CC-1646.,2001-CC-1646.
• Citation: Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP., 809 So.2d 947 (La. 2002)
• Parties: Lonnie C. RENFROE, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Rose Renfroe, and Judith Renfroe Prince v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Road District No. 1 of the Parish of Jefferson, and the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

809 So.2d 947

Lonnie C. RENFROE, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Rose Renfroe, and Judith Renfroe Prince v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Road District No. 1 of the Parish of Jefferson, and the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission.

No. 2001-CC-1646.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 26, 2002.

Burgess E. McCranie, Jr., Marty R. Dupuy, Campbell, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo & Hardy, Metairie; Daniel A. Ranson, Michael D. Peytavin, Windhorst, Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, Gretna, Counsel for Applicant.

Michael J. Begoun, Tilden D. Pick, Mark R. Wolfe, Wolfe, Begoun & Pick, New

Orleans; Richard P. Ieyoub, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Respondent.

VICTORY, J.

At issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs supplemental and amending petitions, which added Road District No. 1 of the Parish of Jefferson ("Road District No. 1") and the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission ("GNOEC") as defendants outside of the one-year prescriptive period, relates back to an earlier timely filed petition against the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development ("DOTD"). After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts and hold that plaintiffs action has prescribed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 28, 1998, as Rose Renfroe was driving south on Causeway Boulevard approximately two-tenths of a mile before reaching the overpass over U.S. Highway 61 (Airline Highway), her vehicle crossed the concrete median on Causeway Boulevard and collided with a pickup truck and a tractor trailer, both of which were proceeding north on Causeway Boulevard. Mrs. Renfroe was pronounced dead at the scene.

On April 22, 1999, Mrs. Renfroe's husband, Lonnie Renfroe, filed a petition for damages individually, and on behalf of the estate Rose Renfroe and Judith Renfroe Prince, against the DOTD. Plaintiff alleged that the DOTD was liable for Mrs. Renfroe's death under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315 and 2317 due to improper construction, maintenance, and design of Causeway Boulevard. Plaintiff named the DOTD as defendant based on signs along parts of Causeway Boulevard designating it as "LA 3046" and also because the State Police investigated the accident.

On July 19, 1999, the DOTD filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that, although another part of Causeway Boulevard is a state highway, the state highway begins at Jefferson Highway to the south and ends at its junction with the south right of way line with Airline Highway, which does not include the portion of Causeway Boulevard where the accident occurred.¹ Accordingly, on September 20, 1999, plaintiff filed its first supplemental and amending petition adding Jefferson Parish and the GNOEC as defendants as the proper owners of the portion of Causeway Boulevard where the accident occurred. On October 5, 1999, Jefferson Parish filed an exception of misjoinder and nonjoinder of an indispensible party, Road District No. 1, a separate legal entity, created and governed by Jefferson Parish. Thereafter, on October 15, 1999, plaintiff filed its second supplemental and amending petition, substituting Road District No. 1 as a defendant in place of Jefferson Parish.²

On December 14, 1999, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the DOTD, dismissing the plaintiffs action against the DOTD on all matters connected with the ownership and maintenance of the accident location, finding that the DOTD did not own or maintain that portion of Causeway Boulevard, and leaving the remaining issue against the DOTD that of defective design. On June 30, 2000, the trial court granted the DOTD's exception of peremption on the design defect claim under La. R.S. 9:2772, which provides a seven-year peremptive period for actions involving deficiencies in design. Thus, the DOTD was dismissed from the suit with prejudice.

On August 18, 2000, and October 23, 2000, respectively, Road District No. 1 and the GNOEC filed exceptions of prescription, claiming that the release of the timely sued solidary obligor, the DOTD, caused the case against them to prescribe. The trial court denied the defendants' motions, finding that the suit against Road District No. 1 and the GNOEC related back to plaintiffs suit against the DOTD, and therefore was timely. The court of appeal agreed and denied the defendants' writ application. Renfroe v. State of Louisiana through the DOTD, et al., 01-0292 (3/15/01). We granted the defendants' writ application to determine whether the plaintiffs supplemental and amending petitions relate back to the timely filed suit against the DOTD. Renfroe v. State of Louisiana through the DOTD, et al., 01-1646 (10/5/01), 798 So.2d 952.

DISCUSSION

Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescriptive period of one year, which commences to run from the date the injury is sustained. La. C.C. art. 3492. The delictual action against Road District No. 1 and the GNOEC was not filed during the one-year prescriptive period, although suit was timely filed against the DOTD. Under La. C.C. art. 3462, prescription is interrupted by the commencement of suit against the obligor in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue. Further, the interruption of prescription by suit against one solidary obligor is effective as to all solidary obligors. La. C.C. arts. 1799 and 3503. The same principle is applicable to joint tortfeasors. La. C.C. art. 2324C. However, a suit timely filed against one defendant does not interrupt prescription as against other defendants not timely sued, where the timely sued defendant is ultimately found not liable to plaintiffs, since no joint or solidary obligation would exist. Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La.1992). Because the timely sued defendant, the DOTD, was dismissed from the suit, prescription against Road District No. 1 and the GNOEC is not interrupted and plaintiffs suit against them has prescribed, unless some other basis to revive this suit is found.

Plaintiff argues that the untimely supplemental and amending petitions relate back to the timely filed petition against the DOTD under La. C.C.P. art. 1153. La. C.C.P. art. 1153 provides:

When the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer 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.

In Ray v. Alexandria Mall, Through St. Paul Property & Liability Ins., 434 So.2d 1083, 1087 (La.1983), this Court established the following criteria for determining whether art. 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party or parties sued to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition:

(1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original petition (2) The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits;

(3) The purported substitute defendant must know or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party defendant, the action would have been brought against him;

(4) The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant, since this would be tantamount to assertion of a new cause of action which would have otherwise prescribed.

Plaintiff argues that all of the criteria of Ray have been met; we disagree. The second Ray criteria is very clear—the purported substitute defendants, in this case Road District No. 1 and the GNOEC, "must have received notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits." Ray, supra at 1087. In this case, there is no evidence in the record, and plaintiff makes no contention, that either of these entities "received notice of the institution of the action." While plaintiff argues that Jefferson Parish received notice of the accident because Jefferson Parish deputies responded to the accident, this is not the same as receiving notice of the institution of the lawsuit. As we stated in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985):

The fundamental purpose of prescription statutes is only to afford a defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely, and to protect him from stale claims and from the loss of non-preservation of relevant proof. They are designed to protect him against lack of notification of a formal claim within the prescriptive period, not against pleading mistakes that his opponent makes in filing the formal claim within the period.

There is no doubt that neither Road District No. 1 nor the GNOEC received notice of the institution of the suit within the prescriptive period. However, plaintiff claims that under Findley v. Baton Rouge, 570 So.2d 1168 (La.1990), notice is not technically necessary, and that the real issue is whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the lack of notice. In Findley, plaintiff timely filed suit against the City of Baton Rouge for an accident that occurred in a public park, but, upon learning that the park was actually owned by the Recreation and Park Commission of East Baton Rouge Parish ("BREC"), filed an untimely amended petition adding BREC as a defendant. This Court held that the amended petition against the new defendant related back to the original petition, even though BREC may not have received formal notice of the institution of the lawsuit. Findley, supra. The basis of that holding, however, was that "when there is an identity of interest between the originally named defendant and the party the plaintiff actually intended to sue, the amendment may relate back, in the absence of prejudice, on the basis that institution of the action against one serves to...