 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury6/5/2002
uses which are perempted within the time described above include any action:
(3) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency;
The record in the instant case reveals that construction of the bridge in question was completed by Mr. Slocum, on or about December 15, 1980, some fifteen years prior to the filing of the suit in this matter. According to his affidavit, Mr. Slocum has not inspected or performed any other work on the bridge since that date, and has not been informed of any deficiencies in the bridge prior to the filing of the Heberts petition in this matter. The Police Jury filed acceptance of the work done by J.W. Slocum, Jr. with the Clerk of Court for Rapides Parish on or about December 29 1980.
La.Civ.Code art. 462 provides, "Tracts of land, with their component parts, are immovables." Roads and bridges built across a tract of land are improvements to that land. The road at issue belongs to the Rapides Parish Police Jury. Appellants argue that because the appellee's have offered no proof of the ownership of the land upon which the road is situated, they have failed to establish the road is an immovable and, therefore, the bridge at issue cannot be considered as an improvement to an immovable. Their argument is misplaced.
The plain wording of the statute sets forth the peremptive period for actions against " ny person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, or observation of construction or the construction of an improvement to immovable property. . . ." (emphasis added)
Based on the facts before us, which are undisputed, proof of ownership of the land upon which the road and bridge are situated is immaterial and irrelevant. The bridge at issue was built as an improvement to the road and the land upon which it is situated and, contrary to the appellant's argument, it is not necessary to establish under the clear wording of this statute, that proof must be given as to whether the owner of the bridge is also the owner of the land. It is not necessary to determine whether the bridge is in fact a movable, or has become a component part of the land, to determine whether we find the bridge to be an improvement to the immovable, i.e. the tract of land upon which it is situated.
We find the bridge to be an "improvement to immovable property" as contemplated by the statute. As such, the provisions of La.R.S. 9:2772 clearly apply and the action against Slocum and his insurers is barred by the provisions of that statute.
DECREE
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs-appellants.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|