finding that the district court was “incompetent” to hear a claim for tort liability against an employer where the employer was immune from tort liability under Louisiana’s worker compensation statute
How later courts described this case
- finding that the district court was “incompetent” to hear a claim for tort liability against an employer where the employer was immune from tort liability under Louisiana’s worker compensation statute
- observing that plaintiff’s delay in discovering the names of architect and construction company for hotel was not reasonable because the information was available in records of the City Office of Safety and Permits
- explaining that when prescription is interrupted for one solidary obligor, it is interrupted for all solidary obligors
- “[T]he fact that an obligation existed to provide workers’ compensation benefits meant that for purposes of prescription, the alleged tortfeasor and the employer were solidary obligors.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, J.,
dissenting.
hi dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Victory.
Application for rehearing denied.