Babineaux v. DOTD

Citations: 927 So. 2d 1121; 2005 WL 3489549Docket: 2004 CA 2649

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 21, 2005; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Vicki and Norbert Babineaux v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld a trial court's decision sustaining DOTD's peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription. The plaintiffs, involved in a single-vehicle accident on September 7, 1999, contended that they were unaware of their legal claim against DOTD until they saw a billboard about hydroplane hazards in September 2002. They filed their lawsuit on May 2, 2003. 

The trial court held a hearing on the prescription exception, where evidence and testimony were presented. It concluded that the Babineauxs' claim had prescribed and dismissed the suit with prejudice. On appeal, the Babineauxs argued that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply, asserting that the prescriptive period only began when they gained knowledge of their cause of action through the billboard.

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's factual findings under the "manifest error" standard, affirming that prescription begins when a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating they are a victim of a tort. The burden of proof lies with the party raising the exception to demonstrate that the claim has prescribed, but if prescription appears to have run from the pleadings, the opposing party must then show that it was suspended or interrupted. The court ultimately confirmed the trial court's ruling.

The applicable prescriptive period for the Babineauxs' delictual action is one year, starting from the date of the accident on September 7, 1999, as per LSA-C.C. art. 3492. The Babineauxs filed their lawsuit on May 2, 2003, which is over three years post-accident, indicating that the claim is time-barred unless they can demonstrate that the prescription was interrupted or suspended. They invoke the doctrine of contra non valentem non currit praescriptio, which allows for suspension of prescription in circumstances where a plaintiff cannot bring a suit due to external factors. The Louisiana Supreme Court recognizes four scenarios under this doctrine, including the "discovery rule," which applies if the cause of action was unknown to the plaintiff. The Babineauxs argue this rule applies since they did not realize the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) could be liable until September 2002, prompted by a billboard about hydroplane hazards.

However, it is established that ignorance of the grounds for action cannot be willful, neglectful, or unreasonable. A plaintiff is expected to know what could be learned with reasonable diligence. The prescriptive period begins when a plaintiff has sufficient notice to warrant inquiry into a claim. Despite the Babineauxs' claims, evidence shows that Mrs. Babineaux was aware of the accident's cause (hydroplaning) immediately after it occurred. Her deposition confirms she recognized driving into standing water on Hwy. 90 led to the accident, and this is supported by the accident report and witness statements, which corroborate that water on the roadway caused her vehicle to overturn.

Standing water on Hwy. 90 was visible and not concealed, as acknowledged by Mrs. Babineaux, who also stated that nothing hindered her from filing a lawsuit within a year of the accident. Despite claiming that inquiries to the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) would have been fruitless regarding the alleged hydroplane hazard, this argument was deemed unpersuasive. Silence from defendants does not negate the availability of discovery procedures that allow plaintiffs to uncover necessary facts. If the Babineauxs had pursued inquiries into DOTD’s liability, they could have compelled the disclosure of pertinent information. The evidence available to them was sufficient to prompt further investigation into the accident's cause. A simple inquiry or consultation with legal counsel would have made DOTD’s potential liability clear. The Babineauxs had no impediment preventing them from inquiring or filing a timely suit despite being aware of the hydroplaning incident's circumstances. Therefore, the doctrine of contra non valentem, which can excuse a delay in filing a claim, does not apply. The trial court's decision to uphold DOTD's objection based on prescription was affirmed, with all appeal costs assigned to the plaintiffs, Vicki and Norbert Babineaux.