Facts
On 23 July 1985, a barn belonging to W. burned down in Littau. The barn was leased to company S. AG, which had concluded sublease agreements with R. (boat construction workshop) and G. (plastic processing). K. and A. had also stored goods in the barn. The fire broke out in G.'s plastic processing business due to the ignition of acetone vapors. The District Court of Lucerne-Campagne ordered W., G., and the insurance company to pay damages to S. AG, R., K., and A. In the appeal proceedings, the Cantonal Court of Lucerne only awarded damages to R. The claimants, except for K., filed a federal appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court. The defendants concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. The defendants raised the defense of prescription in the federal appeal proceedings.Considerations
Under federal law, the statute of limitations also runs during pending court proceedings, unless one of the facts described in Art. 134 CO is realized. The statute of limitations remains suspended only if the proceedings are suspended for a fixed period, but not if they are suspended for an indefinite period for settlement negotiations.
In the federal appeal proceedings, the defense of prescription raises difficulties, as Art. 55(1)(c) FJA generally prohibits the assertion of new factual arguments. However, this principle must be interpreted in a way that…