De Atley v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue
876 So. 2d 112 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) provides the exclusive remedy for personal injury claims against a product manufacturer, but it preserves a separate cause of action in redhibition for purely economic losses. An amended petition adding a redhibition claim will relate back to the filing date of an original LPLA petition if both claims arise from the same factual occurrence.
Facts:
- In December 1999, Carol Chilton De Atley purchased a cotton flannel dress from a Victoria's Secret catalog.
- Cheri Pink, Inc. had sold the dress to Victoria's Secret for retail sale.
- On January 8, 2001, while at her home, De Atley stood near a gas fireplace.
- The cotton flannel dress she was wearing caught on fire from the fireplace.
- As a result of the dress catching fire, De Atley suffered severe bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 21, 2001, Carol and Ronald De Atley (respondents) filed suit against Victoria's Secret and Cheri Pink (relators) in a Louisiana trial court, asserting claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA).
- On December 11, 2003, the De Atleys filed a third amended and supplemental petition to add a claim in redhibition.
- In response, the relators filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and prescription, arguing the LPLA was the exclusive remedy and the redhibition claim was filed too late.
- The trial court denied the relators' exceptions.
- The relators, Victoria's Secret and Cheri Pink, then filed applications for supervisory writs with the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, seeking review of the trial court's denial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an amended petition adding a claim in redhibition for economic loss relate back to the timely filing date of an original petition asserting a claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) when both claims arise from the same underlying transaction and occurrence?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobias, J.
Yes. An amended petition adding a claim in redhibition relates back to the filing of the original products liability petition because both claims arise from the same factual situation, and the LPLA, while exclusive for personal injury, does not preclude a redhibition claim for economic loss. The LPLA's definition of 'damage' explicitly excludes economic losses recoverable under the Civil Code articles on redhibition, thereby preserving it as a distinct cause of action for claims such as the value of the product. Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 1153, an amendment relates back if it 'arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence' from the original pleading. Because both the LPLA claim for personal injury and the redhibition claim for economic loss stem from the same core event—the sale and subsequent malfunction of the allegedly defective dress—there is sufficient factual connexity. The original petition gave the defendants fair notice of the factual basis of the dispute, so the amended petition adding the redhibition claim is considered timely.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the Louisiana Products Liability Act's exclusivity provision, confirming that it does not wholly subsume the traditional civil law action of redhibition. The court establishes a clear distinction: the LPLA is the sole vehicle for personal injury claims, while redhibition remains viable for recovering purely economic losses. This ruling allows plaintiffs to pursue remedies for both types of harm and, significantly, to potentially recover attorney's fees under a redhibition claim, which are barred by the LPLA. The case reinforces Louisiana's liberal application of the 'relation back' doctrine, prioritizing factual connexity over rigid pleading rules and allowing plaintiffs flexibility in adding related legal theories after the initial filing.
Unlock the full brief for De Atley v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue