Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Continental Kennel Club, Inc. v. FANCY PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Citations: 763 So. 2d 827; 0 La.App. 1 Cir. 0124; 2000 La. App. LEXIS 1844; 2000 WL 828278Docket: 00 CA 0124
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 23, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Continental Kennel Club, Inc. (CKC) filed a lawsuit against Fancy Publications, Inc., Dog Fancy, Inc., and Dogs USA, claiming breach of contract and negligent publication regarding an advertisement agreement dated June 18, 1996. CKC alleged that it relied on representations that the advertisement would appear exclusively in U.S. versions of the magazines, but it was published in an international edition instead. The defendants responded with an exception of no cause of action, leading the trial court to dismiss the negligent publication claim, asserting it was a contractual dispute rather than a tort. CKC appealed, arguing the trial court erred in this determination and cited Bunch v. South Central Bell as precedent for a tort claim due to negligent publication. However, the defendants referenced Bonfiglio v. Bellsouth Advertising Publishing Corp., which established that errors in advertisement placement amounted to breach of contract rather than tort. The appellate court found the current case distinguishable from Bunch since CKC's claim was based solely on the broad publication of the advertisement, thus affirming the trial court's dismissal of the negligent publication claim. The ruling establishes that there is no allegation of actions beyond the contract's terms, making the Bonfiglio case applicable and classifying any error as contractual rather than tortious. The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's negligent publication claim is upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to Continental Kennel Club, Inc. Judge Parro concurs with the decision, while Judge Fitzsimmons dissents, arguing that Fancy Publications exceeded the contractual scope by engaging in actions that led to negligence. Fitzsimmons cites a precedent (Bunch v. South Central Bell Telephone Company) to support the view that a negligence claim is valid when harm arises from actions outside the agreed contractual duties. He advocates for reversing the trial court's dismissal of the negligent publication claim. Only the exception of no cause of action was appealed, and the trial court's partial judgment is considered final and appealable under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B).