Chance v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 624 So. 2d 23 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Chance v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 624 So. 2d 23 (La. Ct. App. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Danny H. CHANCE and Earlene Chance
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
No. W93-757.
Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Sep 14, 1993.
624 So. 2d 23
Lawrence J. Duplass, Bernard J. Williams, Metairie, for applicant., Karl J. Koch, Baton Rouge, for respondents.
Domenglaux, Knoll, Woodard.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in denying relators’ exception of prescription. We find no clear expression of legislative intent that La.C.C. art. 3492, as amended in 1992, is to be applied retroactively. Absent such an intention, Louisiana courts have consistently held that prescriptive statutes will not be applied retroactively to revive an already prescribed cause of action. Hall v. Hall, 516 So.2d 119 (La.1987); Lyman v. Town of Sunset, 567 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990). Thus, the trial court erred when it ruled that the 1992 amendment to Article 3492 could retroactively revive the plaintiffs’ cause of action, which under prior law had prescribed as of October 26, 1988.