Louisiana Supreme Court Reaffirms Scope of Contra Non Valentem 

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the narrow scope of contra non valentem and dismissed all claims against Leake Andersson’s clients in Bossier v. Haza Foods of Louisiana, LLC and The Wendy’s Company. The case carried potential exposure in the range of $10–$20 million. 

Leake Andersson represented Haza Foods of Louisiana, LLC and The Wendy’s Company in a personal injury action arising from alleged premises-related negligence at a restaurant location. 

Procedural History 

The plaintiff filed suit more than three years after the alleged incident. This lies well outside the applicable prescriptive period. Leake Andersson raised an exception of prescription (running of the statute of limitations), which the district court denied. The First Circuit also denied supervisory relief. 

Undeterred, Leake Andersson attorneys Dean Arruebarrena and Leila D’Aquin brought the issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In a brief per curiam opinion, the high court granted certiorari. They also made the writ peremptory and dismissed the claims against the firm’s clients. The plaintiff’s subsequent motion for rehearing was also denied, by a 6–1 vote. 

The Court’s Analysis 

In Bossier v. Haza Foods of Louisiana, LLC, 2025-00909 (La. 11/5/25), 421 So. 3d 965, reh’g denied, 2025-00909 (La. 1/28/26), the plaintiff argued that prescription should be suspended under the doctrine of contra non valentem due to alleged mental incapacity following the accident. He relied on Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corrections, 375 So. 2d 1319 (La. 1979). In this case, prescription was suspended because the plaintiff, who was injured while in state custody, was unaware of his condition for more than a year, a fact stipulated by the parties. 

As Leake Andersson argued, the facts in Bossier did not align with Corsey. The defendants did not have custody or control over the plaintiff following the accident. They did not conceal any alleged negligence. Finally, they did nothing to prevent him from filing suit. The evidence showed that the plaintiff recalled learning within weeks of the accident that he had been injured in a fall. 

The Supreme Court agreed. They noted that the plaintiff had never been interdicted and had “sufficient information about his potential cause of action.” His failure to file suit timely could not be attributed to any action by the defendants. Accordingly, the Court granted the exception of prescription and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.