Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 923014
Summary Calendar.
Debbie CROSBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., DefendantsAppellants,
v.
CHICKFILA, INC., DefendantAppellee.
Nov. 30, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:
A suit for personal injuries resulting from a bone in a chicken sandwich spawned the cross
claim at issue on this appeal: the defendant restaurant ChickFilA, Inc., claimed indemnity or
contribution from its supplier, defendant Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. Upon a jury verdict finding
ChickFilA not at fault and Pilgrim's Pride totally at fault, the court entered judgment that Pilgrim's
Pride and its insurer, Old Republic Insurance Company, bear all costs and attorneys' fees incurred by
ChickFilA.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the court properly awarded ChickFilA attorneys' fees

against Pilgrim's Pride.1 The parties disagree about whether the Louisiana Products Liability Act2 or
the Louisiana Civil Code articles on redhibition3 govern the cross-claim. Finding that attorneys' fees
are not allowed under the Act and that redhibition was neither pleaded nor proven, we hold that the
fee award was improper.
No Fee Under Products Liability Act
The plaintiffs tried their case on a products liability theory of liability. According to the jury
verdict, both ChickFilA and Pilgrim's Pride are "manufacturers" within the meaning of the
Louisiana Products Liability Act, and the sandwich was unreasonably dangerous. It is undisputed that
if ChickFilA's cross-claim was also under the Products Liability Act, ChickFilA cannot recover
attorneys' fees. See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9:2800.53(5).
Redhibition not Pleaded or Proven
The court allowed a fee award in favor of ChickFilA on the basis of the law of redhibition,
a remedy which permits a fee award in certain circumstances. Redhibition is the right of a buyer to
rescind a sale on account of a hidden vice or defect in the thing sold. See La.Civ.Code Ann. arts.
252021 (West 1952). If the seller cannot repair the vice, it must restore the purchase price and pay
expenses of the sale and for the preservation of the thing sold. Id. art. 2531 (West Supp.1992). An
award of attorneys' fees is provided in redhibition by the following article: "The seller, who knows
the vice of the thing he sells and omits to declare it, besides the restitution of price and repayment of
the expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, is answerable to the buyer in damages." Id. art.
1The parties also brief a procedural issue: whether ChickFilA's failure to plead attorneys'
fees as an item of special damages bars recovery of fees under Rule 9. We hold that any pleading
defect has been cured, because the district court effectively permitted an amendment to the
pleading after finding no prejudice to Pilgrim's Pride. 2R. 25051. Failure to plead special
damages does not bar recovery if the defect can be cured by amendment. See 5 Charles A.
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1312 (1990). Because the claim
was advanced by ChickFilA during pretrial conferences, the court did not err in considering the
merits of the claim as though the pleadings had been amended. See Sherman v. Hallbauer, 455
F.2d 1236, 1242 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that the district court should have construed a summary
judgment memorandum containing a revised theory of the case as a motion to amend pleadings
under Rule 15).
2La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 9:2800.512800.59 (West 1991).
3La.Civ.Code Ann. arts. 252048 (West 1952 and Supp.1992).

2545 (West Supp.1992). Jurisprudence permits this additional recovery of attorneys' fees against
manufacturers on the presumption that they "know the vice" and are deemed to be in bad faith in
selling a defective product. E.g., Cox v. Lanier Business Products, Inc., 423 So.2d 690, 69394
(La.Ct.App.1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983).
An intermediate seller may recover its attorneys' fees from a manufacturer based on this
jurisprudential development of article 2545 and the following code article:
In any case in which the seller is held liable because of redhibitory defects in the thing
sold, the seller shall have a corresponding and similar right of action against the manufacturer
of the thing for any losses sustained by the seller, and ... any ... manufacturer-seller contract
... attempting to limit ... such recoupment by the seller shall not be given any force or effect.
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2531; see also Cox, 423 So.2d at 694.
As evidenced from the qualifying language in article 2531, t he seller's rights against the
manufacturer are derivative of the plaintiff/buyer's action against the seller. That is, only if a seller
is liable in redhibition may it "recoup" its liability to a buyer from its manufacturer. See La.Civ.Code
Ann. art. 2531; see also Mouillier v. Hallmark Pool Corp., 514 So.2d 523 (La.Ct.App.1987)
(manufacturer not liable for seller's attorneys' fees if seller is not "liable because of redhibitory
defects").
The judge erred in applying these principles to the cro ss claim against the manufacturer.
ChickFilA was not a "seller ... held liable because of redhibitory defect," and so can claim no rights
under the foregoing code articles and jurisprudence. Plaintiffs were not seeking to avoid a sale and
recover the price of the sandwich. No redhibitory claim was pleaded or proven by the plaintiffs or
cross-claimant ChickFilA. Accordingly, ChickFilA had no right of recoupment against Pilgrim's
Pride under the redhibition articles and no right to an award of attorneys' fees under article 2545.
ChickFilA has cited no contract or other statute providing for an award of attorneys' fees
to the trial court or this Court.
There is no reason for remand. We simply amend the judgment to strike the order that Old
Republic Insurance Company and Pilgrim's Pride Corporation pay reasonable attorneys' fees incurred
by ChickFilA, Inc. ChickFilA's request for additional attorneys' fees in defense of this appeal
is DENIED.