Torres v. LOUISIANA SHRIMP AND PACKING COMPANY

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Torres v. LOUISIANA SHRIMP AND PACKING COMPANY

32 So. 3d 803, 2010 La. LEXIS 836, 2010 WL 1599287

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 9, 2010

Docket2009-C-2792

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 So. 3d 803 (Torres v. LOUISIANA SHRIMP AND PACKING COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Torres v. LOUISIANA SHRIMP AND PACKING COMPANY, 32 So. 3d 803, 2010 La. LEXIS 836, 2010 WL 1599287 (La. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

WRIT GRANTED. It is not disputed by the parties that a timely filed tort suit interrupts the running of prescription on a workers’ compensation claim. Isaac v. Lathan, 01-2639, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 836 So.2d 191, 194-95. In this case, the tort suit filed by the relator against the respondent was dismissed by judgment of the trial court after the withdrawal of the respondent’s prescription exception. When a party withdraws a plea of prescription in the trial court, he thereby renounces the prescription originally pleaded and, having thus abandoned it, may not thereafter re-urge it. Foster v. Breaux, 263 La. 1112, 270 So.2d 526, 529 (1972). Accordingly, the timely tort suit interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for filing relator’s workers’ compensation claim. Moreover, having abandoned the prescription objection to the timeliness of the tort suit, respondent may not now re-urge it. Therefore, the ruling by the trial court granting respondent’s exception of prescription, and the court of appeal decision affirming the ruling, are reversed. The case is remanded to the office of workers’ compensation for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would deny.

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

ORDER

WRIT GRANTED. It is not disputed by the parties that a timely filed tort suit interrupts the running of prescription on a workers’ compensation claim. Isaac v. Lathan, 01-2639, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 836 So.2d 191, 194-95. In this case, the tort suit filed by the relator against the respondent was dismissed by judgment of the trial court after the withdrawal of the respondent’s prescription exception. When a party withdraws a plea of prescription in the trial court, he thereby renounces the prescription originally pleaded and, having thus abandoned it, may not thereafter re-urge it. Foster v. Breaux, 263 La. 1112, 270 So.2d 526, 529 (1972). Accordingly, the timely tort suit interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for filing relator’s workers’ compensation claim. Moreover, having abandoned the prescription objection to the timeliness of the tort suit, respondent may not now re-urge it. Therefore, the ruling by the trial court granting respondent’s exception of prescription, and the court of appeal decision affirming the ruling, are reversed. The case is remanded to the office of workers’ compensation for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 So. 3d 803, 2010 La. LEXIS 836, 2010 WL 1599287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-louisiana-shrimp-and-packing-company-la-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack