 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lucero v. Burney Gear Company6/21/2000
a situation closely similar to the present involving claims against an employer and a third-party tortfeasor for a work-related accident. The source of the employer's liability was the workers' compensation act, La. R.S. 23:1021, et seq., while the other obligor was bound in tort. Nevertheless, despite the different sources of liability and the possibility of differences in the damages recoverable under workers' compensation and in tort, solidarity was held to exist. As stated in Narcise, " hile one item of damages may be recoverable against one debtor and not the other, the parties are liable in solido as to every item for which plaintiff can compel payment from either." Narcise, supra at 1195. Accordingly, the timely filing of suit against the workers' compensation employer was held in Williams to have interrupted prescription against the tortfeasor who was later sued and added as a defendant outside the one-year prescriptive period.
In this case, Braswell makes no claim that T&M;was not Anthony's employer or that the accident did not occur as alleged in the petition while Anthony was acting on the job . Braswell also does not dispute that the workers' compensation suit was timely filed within one year of the accident and acted as an interruption of prescription for the obligation owed by the employer. The similar filing of suit solely against the employer was recognized in Williams as interrupting prescription on the obligations of both the employer and the third-party tortfeasor. Yet, Braswell insists that Williams can be distinguished and should be limited to its facts and the procedure employed in that case.
Braswell emphasizes that both tort and workers' compensation claims were initially pled in one suit in Williams against the employer. Although the employer was ultimately held immune from tort liability, the jury found that the accident resulted from the combined fault of the employer and the third-party tortfeasor, which had been added to the suit after one year from the accident.
In this case, a workers' compensation claim could no longer be pled in the district court as in Williams since the jurisdiction for such claim is now in the OWC. This case has not been tried, and no action of the employer may have caused the accident. Nevertheless, these differences are not material to the application of the Williams ruling to this case. The pleadings and evidence of the OWC filing show an obligation by T&M;for Anthony's damages under workers' compensation and the delictual obligation of Braswell for some of those same damages. These co-extensive obligations for the same damages sustained by Anthony served as the basis for solidarity pursuant to Williams. From the undisputed allegations of the employment relationship and the evidence of the suit filing at the OWC, plaintiff has presented evidence from which we conclude that solidary liability might exist; thus, prescription was interrupted.
Next, Braswell argues that the 1996 amendment to Civil Code article 2324 ended solidary liability in tort and that this change in the law undermines the holding of Williams. Article 2324 provides as follows:
A. He who conspired with another person to commit an intentional or willful act is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act.
B. If liability is not solidary pursuant to Paragraph A, then liability for damages caused by two or more persons shall be 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 for damages attributable to the fault of such other person, including the person suffering injury, d
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|