 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Beauregard Memorial Hospital3/6/2002
background, one can easily conclude that the Legislature, in amending Section 5104 B, did not envision the situation of two political subdivisions sued as solidary obligors in one action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, with each asserting its "right" to be sued in the parish where it is located. If this logical conclusion is correct, the situation in which each of two political subdivisions is demanding its "right" to preferred venue, thereby requiring the judicial inefficiency of two separate trials with the probability of inconsistent results as to liability or damages or both, is an "unprovided for" situation not contemplated by the Legislature to be covered by Section 5104 B. Underwood, 714 So.2d at 718.
While the court in Underwood resolved a venue conflict between two political subdivisions, it recognized that the concept of venue no longer provides a special right to a defendant to be sued within his home jurisdiction and that the special venue statutes simply create a "home base" not provided in La.Code Civ.P. art. 42.
Although not faced with a conflict between political subdivisions, we are faced with a conflict between a number of defendants, each having a "home base" venue provision. Certainly, if the legislature did not envision suits against two political subdivisions from different parishes as occurred in Underwood, it follows that the legislature did not intend that the venue provisions of La.R.S. 13:5104(B) and La.R.S. 46:1063 would preclude the application of La.Code Civ.P. art. 73(A) when a political subdivision is joined as a joint or solidary obligor.
We also note that there are other venue provisions that work against application of an exclusivity rule urged by Beauregard Memorial. For example, if the plaintiffs in this matter had sued only the doctors and their insurers, there would be no venue argument because La.Code Civ.P. art. 73(A) clearly would be applicable. However, if one of the doctors or his insurer were to third party Beauregard Memorial, the objection of improper venue could not be urged. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1034. Thus, we find no merit in Beauregard Memorial's assignments of error.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's rejection of the exception of improper venue. We tax all costs of this appeal to Hospital Service District No. 2 of Beauregard Parish, d/b/a Beauregard Memorial Hospital.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|