Ray v. Alexandria Mall - 434 So. 2d 1083 (La. 1983)

Rule:

The Louisiana Supreme Court establishes the following criteria for determining whether La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party or parties sued to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; (3) The purported substitute defendant must know or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party defendant, the action would have been brought against him; (4) The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant, since this would be tantamount to assertion of a new cause of action which would have otherwise prescribed.

Facts:

After being injured in a slip and fall on Alexandria Mall’s property, Frances Ray filed a negligence suit against Alexandria Mall. However, Ray did not name the proper party in her original complaint and subsequently filed an amended complaint. The trial court sustained Alexandria Mall’s peremptory exception of prescription to the amended complaint, and the appellate court affirmed. 

Issue:

Did the lower courts err in sustaining a peremptory exception of prescription urged in opposition to Ray’s action to recover damages allegedly sustained by her when she slipped and fell in the Alexandria Mall?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court reversed and remanded the appellate court's order holding that the amended complaint related back to the filing date of the original complaint and interrupted the running of the prescription. The court further held that the allowance of the amended complaint would not have prejudiced Alexandria Mall. Finally, the court held that Alexandria Mall had received notice of Ray’s claim against it through service upon its agent, and but for Ray’s mistake concerning the identity of the proper party in the original complaint, Alexandria Mall should have known that the action would have been brought against it.