Opinion ID: 2537041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Continuing Tort Doctrine in Louisiana Law

Text: The continuing tort doctrine provides that, when a tort occurs over a period of time, prescription does not begin to run until the defendant's harmful action has ceased. The relevant prescriptive period for a claim involving damage to immovable property is found in Civ.Code art. 3493: When damage is caused to immovable property, the one year prescription commences to run from the day the owner of the immovable acquired, or should have acquired, knowledge of the damage. Although the continuing tort doctrine is not explicitly set forth in Civil Code art. 3493, it is fairly implied in that article's concept of damage. To determine when prescription begins to run under article 3493, a court first must determine when the damage is caused to the immovable property. In other words, when the plaintiff continues to suffer further damages to his property flowing from the initial tortious act, the tort continues. The continuing tort doctrine recognizes that, in some circumstances, there is no single wrongful act that causes the damage. Instead, there are continuous or repeated wrongful acts, each of which creates a new harm. Until those wrongful acts cease, prescription does not run. This Court has long held where the damages claimed are predicated on alleged continuous wrongful acts, causes which are supposed to occur daily, and to produce effects daily repeated ... `prescription, whatever the length of time, has no application.' Di Carlo v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service, 178 La. 676, 152 So. 327, 329 (1933)(quoting Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659, 668-69, 24 L.Ed. 1036 (1878)). A continuing tort exists where the operating cause of injury is a continuous one and gives rise to successive damages. Crump v. Sabine River Authority, 98-2326, p. 7 (La.6/29/99), 737 So.2d 720, 726. This is distinguished from a continuation of the ill effects of an original, wrongful act, which does not create a continuing tort. Id. at 728. The crucial distinction is between an ongoing wrongful act, which tolls prescription, and mere ongoing damages, which do not. The majority holds the operating cause of injury is the leaking tanks, which were admittedly repaired several years before the filing of this lawsuit. I disagree. The proximate cause of plaintiffs' injury is the continued existence of noxious chemicals underneath their property. Until those chemicals are removed, plaintiffs will continue to suffer additional harm, and the tort will not prescribe. Crump v. Sabine River Authority, supra , is this Court's leading case on continuing torts. In Crump, a canal dug on neighboring land drained a nearby bayou, thereby drying up plaintiff's waterfront property and preventing her from accessing Toledo Bend Lake. Id. at 723. Plaintiff did not sue until nearly 20 years after the canal was dug. Plaintiff argued the continued existence of the canal on her property, and her continued inability to access the lake, created a continuing tort and tolled prescription. Defendant countered that there was only one unlawful act, the construction of the canal, and prescription began to run from the date the canal was completed. Id. at 726. The Court held for defendant, relying on Griffin v. Drainage Commission of New Orleans, 110 La. 840, 34 So. 799 (1903), which also involved the unlawful digging of a canal. The Griffin court held, even though the damages continued up to the time suit was filed, the cause of the injury arose, produced injury, and ceased, and prescription began to run the day the canal was complete. Id. at 801.