Opinion ID: 1858219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: retroactivity of amendment to article 2324(b)

Text: Under the comparative fault provision of La.Civ.Code art. 2323, the trial court found DOTD 15% at fault and Aucoin 85% at fault. The minor, Amber, a guest passenger, was found free of fault. Pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 2324(B) as it existed at the time of the accident, DOTD would be solidarily liable for 50% of Amber's damages regardless of Aucoin's ability to pay. [3] In 1996, La.Civ.Code 2324(B) was amended and resulted in the adoption of pure comparative fault. [4] Under the amended version, DOTD would be liable only for the degree of fault found. Before addressing the award of medical expenses, it is necessary to discuss the issue of whether the 1996 amendment to article 2324(B) should be retroactively applied. Act 3 amended both La.Civ.Code art. 2323 and 2324 in the First Extraordinary Session of 1996. This court has already determined that amended article 2323 was merely procedural legislation. Therefore, it was to be applied retroactively. Keith v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 96-2075 (La.5/9/97), 694 So.2d 180. However, as noted by Chief Justice Calogero in his concurrence, Keith was limited to that specific issue. Whether article 2324(B) was also to be applied retroactively has not been addressed by this court. Laws which are procedural or interpretive may apply retroactively, but [i]n the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. La.Civ.Code art. 6. Laws establishing new rules, rights, and duties, or changing existing ones are substantive. Laws which merely establish the meaning the statute had from the time of its enactment are interpretive. Keith at 183; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Smith, 609 So.2d 809, 817 (La.1992). Before 1996, article 2324(B) held defendants liable solidary only to the extent necessary for the person suffering injury, death, or loss to recover fifty percent of his recoverable damages. The 1996 amended article revoked solidarity for nonconspiratorial acts and expressed defendant's liability instead as a joint and divisible obligation. A joint tortfeasor shall not be liable for more than his degree of fault and shall not be solidarily liable with any other person.... That shift from solidary liability to joint and several obligation altered the existing rule. Moreover, since the amendment resulted in changing the amount of damages recoverable, the change was clearly substantive. Socorro v. City of New Orleans, 579 So.2d 931, 944 (La.1991). As such, the amendment can have only prospective application. [5] La.Civ.Code art. 6. Therefore, the applicable article 2324(B) was that which existed at the time of the accident. Under the relevant provision, DOTD is solidarily liable for 50% of Amber's damages, including medical expenses.