State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Farnsworth

4 Citing cases

  1. Randall v. Feducia

    507 So. 2d 1237 (La. 1987)   Cited 20 times
    In Randall v. Feducia, 507 So.2d 1237 (La. 1987), the Supreme Court faced the issue of whether a plaintiff may proceed against a third party defendant who is not solidarily liable when the third party demand was filed within the time period provided by La.C.C.P. art. 1067.

    However, the plaintiff contends since the defendant, Feducia, third partied the City within the 90-day requirement for incidental demands, as allowed by La. Code Civ.P. art 1067, the City was put on notice of the demand, and the date of her amendment, adding the City as co-defendant, is unimportant. The plaintiff cited two cases to the Court of Appeal in support of her argument: Carona v. Radwin, 195 So.2d 465 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967), writ denied, 250 La. 639, 197 So.2d 897 (La. 1967); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Farnsworth, 425 So.2d 827 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1982), writ denied, 433 So.2d 150 (La. 1983). In its opinion, the Court of Appeal distinguished Carona saying in that case, unlike the present case, both the original suit and the third party demand were filed within the one year prescriptive period although the plaintiff amended to add the third party as a defendant more than a year after the accident.

  2. Dickerson v. Jordan

    514 So. 2d 719 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    When the evidence does not show that the last car caused an impact between the middle and lead cars, the presumption is not applied. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Farnsworth, 425 So.2d 827 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1983), writ denied 433 So.2d 150 (La. 1983). Overruled on other grounds in Randall v. Feducia, 507 So.2d 1237 (La. 1987).

  3. Pontiff v. Bailey

    509 So. 2d 451 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    The amended petition added a defendant which was not wholly new or unrelated to the pending litigation. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Farnsworth, 425 So.2d 827, 829 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1982), the appeals court quoted Justice Tate regarding prescriptive issues as follows: "`The fundamental purpose of prescription statutes is only to afford a defendant security of mind and affairs if no claim is made timely, and to protect him from stale claims and from the loss or nonpreservation of relevant proof.

  4. Randall v. Feducia

    499 So. 2d 458 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    In Randall v. Feducia, 499 So.2d 458 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986), aff'd, 507 So.2d 1237 (La. 1987), Sharon Randall, who rented a residence in Shreveport, Louisiana, from Tony Feducia, slipped or fell at the junction of the residence's walkway and the sidewalk.

    Ms. Randall amended her petition thereafter on August 31, 1984, to add the City as a defendant. In support of her position, plaintiff cites State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Farnsworth, 425 So.2d 827 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1982), writ denied 433 So.2d 150 (La. 1983). The facts of that case are strikingly similar to the case at bar.