Strahan v. Sabine Retirement & Rehab. Cent.

• Decision Date: 30 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07-1607.,07-1607.
• Citation: 981 So.2d 287
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: Inez R. STRAHAN v. SABINE RETIREMENT & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.

981 So.2d 287

Inez R. STRAHAN v. SABINE RETIREMENT & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.

No. 07-1607.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

Donald G. Kelly, James Rex Fair, Jr., Natchitoches, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Inez R. Strahan.

Joseph G. Glass, Jaime M. Cambre, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock, Metairie, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Sabine Retirement & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Inez R. Strahan, a resident of Sabine Retirement and Rehabilitation Center (SRRC), was injured in a motor vehicle accident while being transported in an SRRC vehicle to a doctor's appointment. Ms. Strahan sued SRRC for damages after the expiration of one year from the date of the accident. The trial court sustained SRRC's exceptions of prescription and prematurity. Ms. Strahan has appealed the judgment sustaining the exception of prescription, claiming that her suit seeks damages for breach of contract and is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period, as opposed to the one-year prescriptive period applied to her action by the trial court. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. ISSUES

1. Does this nursing home resident's petition for damages for the injuries she suffered in the nursing home's vehicle while being transported to a doctor's appointment assert a delictual and/or contractual cause of action?

2. Is the plaintiff's petition prescribed since it was filed more than one year after the date of the accident that resulted in her injuries?

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Strahan signed a contract with SRRC for her admission into its facility on April 11, 2005. The contract states that SRRC will provide maintenance, room, board, linens, bedding, nursing care, and certain other personal services to her. On January 13, 2006, while Ms. Strahan was being transported to a regularly scheduled doctor's visit in an SRRC van by an SRRC employee, the vehicle was involved in an accident. Ms. Strahan suffered multiple bruises and abrasions, a broken left arm, a sprained left ankle, aggravation to a previously existing lumbar spine fracture, and a concussion.

On April 17, 2007, approximately one year and four months after the accident occurred, Ms. Strahan filed a lawsuit against SRRC titled "Suit for Breach of Contract and for Damages." In that suit, she alleged that she was entitled to damages for the breach of the specific contract provision requiring SRRC to provide transportation for her to a hospital when such was ordered by a physician. According to Ms. Strahan, the following actions and/or omissions constituted breaches of that contractual obligation: failure to properly prepare her for travel to and from the location of her doctor's appointment; failure and refusal to adhere to the contract's requirements regarding work that is to be performed, resulting in a failure to provide adequate care to her, a patient; violation of the express and implied warranties of fitness in regard to the specifications and services to be provided under the contract; and violations of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. She requested damages for her resulting physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, economic duress, and medical costs.

SRRC filed exceptions of prematurity and prescription in response to the suit. The trial court sustained both exceptions; however, its ruling on the exception of prescription is the only issue before us on appeal.

The trial court agreed with SRRC's argument that Ms. Strahan's suit was prescribed. First, the trial court analyzed the suit to determine whether her claims arose out of tortious conduct or were contractually based, or both. In doing so, the trial court relied on the premise that the nature of the duty breached is the determining factor regarding whether an action is delictual or contractual. Roger v. Dufrene, 613 So.2d 947 (La.1993). Considering this, the court stated that Ms. Strahan's claims, "at their core, are based on alleged delictual actions or omissions of [SRRC], not contractual breach." SRRC's actions, according to the trial court, did not stem from a breach of its contractual promise "[t]o coordinate transportation for the resident to the hospital when ordered by a physician," as asserted by Ms. Strahan. Instead, its actions constituted a delictual violation of SRRC's general duty of care owed to all persons when operating its vehicles. Having found that Ms. Strahan's action was delictual in nature, the trial court stated, "As such, the liberative prescription period is one (1) year pursuant to all applicable prescriptive periods, be it La.[Civ.Code] art. 3492 (negligence),¹ La.R.S. 9:5628 ( [medical] malpractice),² or La.R.S. 40:2010.9(C)³ (nursing home bill of rights)." (Footnotes added). Consequently, the trial court held that Ms. Strahan's suit was prescribed since it was filed more than one year from the date of the accident at issue.

In Ms. Strahan's appeal, she claims that the trial court improperly disregarded the existence of the explicit contractual duty SRRC owed to her as set forth in their agreement — to "coordinate transportation for [her] to the hospital when ordered by a physician" — and erroneously focused instead on SRRC's general duty to third parties to conclude that her claim had prescribed. Because breach of contract actions are personal actions that are subject to a liberative prescriptive period of ten years, pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 3499,⁴ she asserts that her lawsuit constitutes a timely filed action that was erroneously dismissed.

III. LAW AND DISCUSSION

The standard of review applied to a ruling on an exception of prescription is as follows:

In reviewing a peremptory exception of prescription, an appellate court will review the entire record to determine whether the trial court's finding of fact was manifestly erroneous. Morrison v. C.A. Guidry Produce, 03-307 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/03), 856 So.2d 1222. Further, "the standard controlling review of a peremptory exception of prescription requires that this court strictly construe the statutes `against prescription and in favor of the claim that is said to be extinguished.'" Security Ctr. Prot. Servs., Inc. v. All-Pro Security, Inc., 94-1317, 94-1318, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/23/95), 650 So.2d 1206, 1214 (quoting La. Health Serv. v. Tarver, 635 So.2d 1090, 1098 (La.1994)).

Hall v. Reber, 03-1482, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/04), 870 So.2d 424, 426.

The "character of an action given by a plaintiff in his pleadings determines the prescription applicable to it." Duer & Taylor v. Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts, 354 So.2d 192, 194 (La.1978) (citations omitted). This determination can be made by ascertaining the nature of the duty that has been allegedly breached. Roger, 613 So.2d 947. "It is the nature of the duty breached that should determine whether the action is in tort or in contract." Id. at 948 (citing Sciacca v. Polizzi, 403 So.2d 728 (La.1981)). In this case, the nature of the duty breached is disputed. The trial court found that Ms. Strahan's claim for damages is delictual in nature, arising out of a violation of a general duty of care to all persons, as opposed to a breach of any contractual obligation imposed upon SRRC. Based on our review of the record, we agree.

Contractual damages arise out of the breach of a special obligation contractually assumed, and delictual damages arise out of the violation of a duty owed to all persons. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., v. Arnaud, 96-134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/26/96), 676 So.2d 1130, writ denied, 96-1918 (La.11/1/96), 681 So.2d 1263 (citing Davis v. LeBlanc, 149 So.2d 252 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1963)). The facts alleged are that Ms. Strahan was injured while being transported to a regularly scheduled doctor's appointment in the nursing home's van. The contract calls for SRRC to provide general services of care and maintenance to her as a resident of the facility and also contains a specific requirement that she be transported by the nursing home to a hospital when ordered by a physician. Although the record is void of any evidence explaining the meaning of this latter provision and its intended implication, it is apparently conceded by SRRC that it was transporting Ms. Strahan under this provision or other applicable terms of her contract. Nevertheless, the ultimate resolution of...