Chance v. American Honda Motor Co.

624 So. 2d 23, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 2818, 1993 WL 356854
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided September 14, 1993·No. No. W93-757·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in denying relators’ exception of prescription. We find no clear expression of legislative intent that La.C.C. art. 3492, as amended in 1992, is to be applied retroactively. Absent such an intention, Louisiana courts have consistently held that prescriptive statutes will not be applied retroactively to revive an already prescribed cause of action. Hall v. Hall, 516 So.2d 119 (La.1987); Lyman v. Town of Sunset, 567 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990). Thus, the trial court erred when it ruled that the 1992 amendment to Article 3492 could retroactively revive the plaintiffs’ cause of action, which under prior law had prescribed as of October 26, 1988.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., 624 So. 2d 23, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 2818, 1993 WL 356854 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

624 So. 2d 23 (Chance v. American Honda Motor Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dupre v. SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTH CARE PROD., INC.
656 So. 2d 786 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)