noting that when the plaintiff relies on the existence of a solidary relationship between two or more parties as the basis for interrupting prescription, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that solidary relationship
How later courts described this case
- noting that when the plaintiff relies on the existence of a solidary relationship between two or more parties as the basis for interrupting prescription, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that solidary relationship
- choosing to apply a duty-risk analysis in determining the extent of a party’s liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hernandez v. Chalmette Medical Center, 869 So. 2d 141 (2004)
This court distinguished Weber and Younger, stating:
The opinion
[34] I concur, being of the opinion that the "weakened condition theory" espoused by the majority as an "additional theory or approach" to tort liability not previously utilized by our courts is merely a factual determination, under the circumstances, of whether the particular risk which occurred was within the scope of the duty owed by the original tortfeasor.
[35] HALL, Justice, concurring.
[36] The issue of whether the initial tortfeasor is liable for the injuries plaintiff sustained when the shower chair broke, and is therefore a solidary obligor or joint tortfeasor with the hospital which provided the shower chair, should be determined under the duty/risk analysis and the holding of this court in Weber v. Charity Hospital of Louisiana, 475 So.2d 1047
(La. 1985). As is often the case, the prescription issue cannot be decided without evidence and fact finding. The record is inadequate to make this determination, and the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of prescription. I agree that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the exception of prescription, or referral of the exception to the merits, to be ruled on after the evidence is in. *West Page 874