Sam v. Sorrel Elec. Contractors, Inc. - 525 So. 2d 244 (La. Ct. App. 1988)

Rule:

Prescription can even be interrupted by the filing of a suit that is eventually dismissed on the exception of no cause of action if the two suits are based on the same factual occurrence, and the original and subsequent claimants are closely connected in relationship and identity of interest.

Facts:

The decedent's mother filed suit against the driver and insurer for wrongful death and survival. The suit was dismissed on defendants' exception of no cause of action. The tutor of the decedent's minor child thereafter filed suit, and defendants filed an exception of prescription. The trial court granted the motion, and the tutor appealed. Defendants contended on appeal that the dismissal for no cause of action essentially stated that there was no suit, and, therefore, prescription was not interrupted. 

Issue:

Did the suit against the defendants interrupt prescription? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that a valid suit against defendants interrupted prescription where the only issue was the identity of plaintiff, whether it was the mother or the child of the decedent. The court reasoned that because notice was provided by the first suit, the accident was the same event sued under in the second suit, and that the parties, mother and child of the decedent, had a similar interest, the prescriptive period was tolled by the filing of the first suit. The court, therefore, reversed the trial court's grant of defendants' exception of prescription.