{"id":202026,"date":"2015-09-07T22:47:51","date_gmt":"2015-09-08T02:47:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/louisiana-premises-liability-law-irwin-fritchie-urquhart.php"},"modified":"2015-09-07T22:47:51","modified_gmt":"2015-09-08T02:47:51","slug":"louisiana-premises-liability-law-irwin-fritchie-urquhart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/moores-law\/louisiana-premises-liability-law-irwin-fritchie-urquhart.php","title":{"rendered":"Louisiana Premises Liability Law &#8211; Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    On August 4, 2006, Chinita Weber filed a lawsuit against    Metropolitan Hospice alleging wrongful death and survival    claims on behalf of her aunt, Mary London, who died at the    facility in the days following Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane    impacted the New Orleans area on August 29, 2005. Ms. Weber    asserted that Metropolitan Hospice was negligent in causing her    aunts death for two reasons. First, the facility was negligent    in failing to evacuate in advance of Hurricane Katrina. Second,    the facility was negligent in failing to provide adequate    backup electrical power, thereby subjecting her aunt to extreme    heat and unsanitary conditions, which she claimed ultimately    caused her aunts death.  <\/p>\n<p>    Metropolitan Hospice filed an exception of no right of action,    arguing that the Louisiana statutes governing wrongful death    and survival claims did not allow Ms. Weber the right to bring    such claims on behalf of her aunt. Louisiana law permits only    limited classes of beneficiaries to bring such claims, and a    niece does not qualify as such a beneficiary. The trial court    granted the exception, but allowed Ms. Weber thirty days to    amend her petition to properly state a claim.  <\/p>\n<p>    Ms. Weber had herself appointed as representative of her aunts    succession, and filed an amended petition asserting wrongful    death and survival claims as her aunts succession    representative. Metropolitan Hospice responded by filing two    exceptions: (1) an exception of no right of action arguing that    as succession representative, Ms. Weber had no right to assert    a wrongful death claim, and (2) an exception of prescription    arguing that Ms. Webers survival claim was not timely    asserted. The trial court granted both motions, and Ms. Weber    appealed.  <\/p>\n<p>    On appeal, the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in    part the trial courts decision. With regard to the exception    of no right of action, the appellate court affirmed the trial    courts dismissal of Ms. Webers wrongful death claim because    Louisiana law does not allow a succession representative the    right to bring a wrongful death claim. Nevertheless, the    appellate court noted that a successor representative does have    the right to bring a survival claim on behalf of the deceased    person. Thus, whether Ms. Weber could continue pursuing the    survival claim hinged on whether the appellate court agreed    that the survival claim was untimely.  <\/p>\n<p>    Louisiana law requires that survival claims be filed within one    year from the date of the decedents death. While undoubtedly    Ms. Weber filed her original 2006 lawsuit within one year of    her aunts death, the key issue was whether the filing of her    amended complaint in 2011 could relate back to the date that    she filed her original lawsuit on August 4, 2006.  <\/p>\n<p>    In accordance with Louisianas relation back doctrine, four    factors determine whether an amended petition that either adds    or substitutes a plaintiff can be treated as if it were filed    on the date that the original petition was filed. They are: (1)    if the amended claim arises out of the same conduct,    transaction or occurrence as the original claim, (2) the    defendant knew or should have known of the involvement of the    new plaintiff, (3) the new and old plaintiffs are sufficiently    related so that the new party is not entirely new or unrelated,    and (4) the defendant is not prejudiced in preparing its    defense. The appellate court determined that Ms. Webers    amended lawsuit met these requirements.  <\/p>\n<p>    The courts analysis did not end there, however. If Ms. Webers    claims against Metropolitan Hospice could be considered medical    malpractice claims rather than negligence claims, then her    claims would still be untimely since Louisiana law requires    that medical malpractice claims be filed within three years of    the date of the decedents death without exception. Relying on    other Louisiana decisions involving similar Katrina-related    claims, the appellate court determined that Ms. Webers claims    were not, in fact, medical malpractice claims. Accordingly, the    court held that Ms. Webers survival claims were timely as her    amended complaint related back to the date that she filed her    original lawsuit.  <\/p>\n<p>    Take-Away: In cases where someone has died as    a result of the alleged negligence of a premises owner, the    owner may be sued for damages sustained by the decedent prior    to his death and damages sustained by surviving family members    as a result of their loss.  <\/p>\n<p>    This article was co-authored by Lizzi    Richard, an associate at Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &    Moore LLC.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the original post here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.louisianapremisesliabilitylaw.com\/\" title=\"Louisiana Premises Liability Law - Irwin Fritchie Urquhart ...\">Louisiana Premises Liability Law - Irwin Fritchie Urquhart ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> On August 4, 2006, Chinita Weber filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Hospice alleging wrongful death and survival claims on behalf of her aunt, Mary London, who died at the facility in the days following Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane impacted the New Orleans area on August 29, 2005 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/moores-law\/louisiana-premises-liability-law-irwin-fritchie-urquhart.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-moores-law"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202026"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}