Case ID: so3d_199/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CRICHTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francesca M. LAPUYADE v. RAWBAR INC., d/b/a Acme Oyster House Francesca M. Lapuyade v. Rawbar Inc., d/b/a Acme Oyster House Francesca M. Lapuyade v. Rawbar Inc., d/b/a Acme Oyster House.
    Nos. 2016-C-0908, 2016-C-0916, 2016-C-0917.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 6, 2016.
   In re JFC International, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 719-934; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-CA-705.

11 Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant with order and assigns reasons.

hi would grant this application and reinstate the trial court’s judgment sustaining the exception of prescription. Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of one year. La. C.C. art. 3492. But under the doctrine of contra non valentem, in exceptional circumstances this prescriptive period may be suspended. This includes “where the cause of action is neither known nor reasonably knowable by the plaintiff even though plaintiffs ignorance is not induced by the defendant.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368, p. 12 (La.10/19/10); 48 So.3d 234, 245. In my view, this plaintiffs claim that her attorney acted negligently in not investigating all possible defendants is not a justification for the use of the doctrine of contra non valentem.