Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hosp.
1998 WL 419459, 1998 La. LEXIS 2339, 714 So.2d 715 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When otherwise properly cumulated actions against two or more political subdivisions arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the doctrine of ancillary venue allows the suit to be brought in any parish where venue is proper for any one of the political subdivisions.
Facts:
- Frederick Underwood, a student at a public high school in East Feliciana Parish, broke his leg when he was tackled during a physical education class.
- Underwood was transported to Lane Memorial Hospital, located in East Baton Rouge Parish, for admission and treatment of his injury.
- Early the next day, while still a patient at Lane Memorial Hospital, Underwood began to experience respiratory problems.
- His condition progressively worsened, and he died that afternoon in the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- After a medical review panel rendered a decision, Frederick Underwood's parents filed a wrongful death and survival action in the district court for East Feliciana Parish.
- The suit named both the East Feliciana Parish School Board and Lane Memorial Hospital, a political subdivision located in East Baton Rouge Parish, as defendants.
- Lane Memorial Hospital filed an exception of improper venue, arguing that under the controlling statute, suit against it was only proper in East Baton Rouge Parish.
- The trial court sustained the hospital's exception and dismissed the claims against Lane Memorial Hospital without prejudice.
- The plaintiffs' application for supervisory writs to the intermediate court of appeal was denied.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to review the trial court's interlocutory venue ruling.
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 Louisiana's venue statute for political subdivisions, which requires suits to be filed in the parish where the subdivision is located or the cause of action arose, prevent a plaintiff from suing two different political subdivisions from different parishes in a single action in a parish where venue is proper for only one of them?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
No. The venue statute does not prevent a single lawsuit in this situation because the doctrine of ancillary venue allows the actions to be combined. A literal application of the venue statute would require two separate trials based on the same operative facts, leading to judicial inefficiency and the potential for inconsistent results, which contravenes the entire theme of the Code of Civil Procedure. The legislature likely did not envision this specific scenario of two political subdivisions being sued as solidary obligors, making it an "unprovided for" situation. Therefore, applying the doctrine of ancillary venue, which promotes judicial economy, allows the combined actions to be brought in a parish where venue is proper for either one of the political subdivision defendants.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important, judicially-created exception to a seemingly mandatory venue statute for political subdivisions in Louisiana. By prioritizing the policy goals of judicial efficiency and avoiding inconsistent verdicts over a strict statutory interpretation, the court embraced the doctrine of ancillary venue in a new context. This ruling significantly impacts multi-party litigation by allowing plaintiffs to join multiple government entities in a single action, even when no single parish satisfies the specific venue requirements for all defendants. It sets a precedent that practical considerations of judicial economy can override literal statutory language when the legislature has not directly addressed a specific procedural scenario.
