Provides for a liberative prescriptive period of two years
Impact
The shift from a one-year to a two-year prescriptive period reflects an understanding of the complexities often involved in delictual actions, particularly those linked to violent crimes. Supporters of the bill argue that this change will better accommodate the needs of victims, allowing them more time to process their experiences and gather the necessary evidence for their cases. Furthermore, retaining the one-year prescriptive period for medical malpractice actions under R.S. 9:5628 acknowledges the unique nature of such claims, ensuring that patients still have a more expedited process to address grievances against medical professionals.
Summary
House Bill 282 proposes a significant alteration to Louisiana's laws regarding the prescriptive periods for delictual actions, which are civil actions that arise from wrongful acts that cause harm. The primary objective of this bill is to extend the liberative prescriptive period for these types of actions from the current one-year limit to a new two-year limit. This change aims to provide individuals with additional time to seek legal recourse for damages they may have suffered due to actions defined as crimes of violence under state law. The amendment to Civil Code Article 3493.10 is a pivotal aspect of this legislation, as it directly impacts how quickly individuals must act to pursue their claims in court.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 282 appears to be generally supportive among advocates for victims' rights and those who emphasize the importance of providing adequate time frames for bringing forth claims. However, there may also exist concerns regarding the implications of such changes on defendants and the potential for increased litigation as claimants have a broader window to file their lawsuits. The legal community's response has been mixed, indicating a balance of perspectives on the bill's potential outcomes.
Contention
Despite the bill's supportive reception, some points of contention may arise regarding how the increase in the prescriptive period will affect the burden of proof within civil courts. Opponents could argue that lengthening the timeframe may complicate matters for defendants who may find it more challenging to mount their defenses as time passes. Additionally, the bill's contingent effective date, requiring the simultaneous passage of House Bill 89, introduces another layer of complexity and dependency that could spark debate among legislators regarding its overall implementation.
Relating to the regulation of prescriptions for controlled substances, including certain procedures applicable to electronic prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances.