Keith Bossier v. Haza Foods Of Louisiana, Llc, Diamond Land Company, Llc, The Wendy's Company, Abc Insurance Company, Def Insurance Company, And Xyz Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 05, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
KEITH BOSSIER
VS.
HAZA FOODS OF LOUISIANA, LLC,
DIAMOND LAND COMPANY, LLC, THE
WENDY'S COMPANY, ABC INSURANCE
COMPANY, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY,
AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 2025-CC-00909
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Haza Foods of Louisiana, LLC, et al. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For
Supervisory Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court
Number(s) C-697800, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 CW 0299;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 05, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents.
Griffin, J., dissents.
JMG
JLW
WJC
JBM
CRC
11/05/2025 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CC-00909
KEITH BOSSIER
VS.
HAZA FOODS OF LOUISIANA, LLC, DIAMOND LAND COMPANY,
LLC, THE WENDY’S COMPANY, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEF
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PER CURIAM
Relators, Haza Food Louisiana, LLC and The Wendy ’s Company, seek
review of a judgment of the district court denying their exception of prescription.
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 10, 2020, plaintiff filed suit against relators. Plaintiff alleged he was
injured on July 11, 2017 when he fell from the roof of relators ’ restaurant and
sustained permanent traumatic brain injuries.
Relators filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription.
They pointed out plaintiff ’s suit was prescribed on its face and produced evidence
showing that plaintiff was aware no later than September 2017 that he had been
injured in a fall.
Plaintiff opposed the exception. Citing Corsey v. State, Through Dep ’t of
Corrections, 375 So. 2d 1319 (La. 1979), he argued the doctrine of contra non
valentem applied because defendants ’ tortious conduct caused him to be mentally
incapacitated such that he could not understand the facts surrounding his injury.
The district court denied relator ’s exception of prescription, and the court of
appeal denied supervisory relief. Relators’ application to this court followed.

2

DISCUSSION
Because plaintiff’s July 10, 2020 suit was filed more than one year from the
date of his July 11, 2017 accident, the burden is on plaintiff to establish his suit is
timely. See Campo v. Correa , 2001-2707 (La. 6/21/02), 828 So. 2d 502, 508 ( “if
prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff
to show that the action has not prescribed.”). In an effort to meet his burden, plaintiff
relies on the third category of contra non valentem (i.e. where the debtor himself has
done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause
of action), as applied by this court in Corsey.
In Corsey, the plaintiff was an inmate who suffered personal injuries while in
state custody on June 18, 1972. He did not file suit until June 25, 1974, arguing that
because of his injuries he was so mentally incapacitated that he lacked any
understanding of what had happened to him and of his possible legal remedies until
July 1973, when he began to recover an awareness of the events and of his condition.
We found that “due to the defendant’s wrongful conduct, until July 1973 the plaintiff
was unable because of the tort-caused mental incompetency to know he had a cause
of action or to have the mental ability to pursue it.” Corsey, 375 So. 2d at 1323. In
doing so, we reasoned that “[t]o permit prescription to run under the present facts
would permit a defendant with custody and control over a person he had tortiously
injured to profit by his subsequent laxity in medical treatment, when (as here
stipulated) the injured person’s recovery of mental faculties was retarded beyond the
prescriptive period.” Id. at 1324.
The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the extraordinary
circumstances presented in Corsey. Even assuming relators ’ negligence caused
plaintiff’s mental incapacity (an allegation which relators deny), relators did not
have custody or control over plaintiff following the accident and did nothing to
conceal their negligence or prevent him from filing suit. See Harsh v. Calogero, 615

3

So. 2d 420, 423 (La. App. 4 th Cir. 1993) (“[e]ven if we accept that the defendant’s
negligence caused [plaintiff’s] mental impairment, his negligence did not stop her
from asserting her rights or conceal from her the facts which gave rise to her
injury.”).
Unlike Corsey, where the parties stipulated the plaintiff did not under stand
what happened to him until the prescriptive period expired, the evidence in the case
before us shows that plaintiff admitted that during his hospitalization between
August 31, 2017 through September 28, 2017, a nurse told him he had been injured
in a fall. Similarly, plaintiff’s medical records from September 2017 confirm his
injuries resulted from a fall which occurred on July 11, 2017.
Clearly, this evidence shows plaintiff , who has never been interdicted, had
sufficient information about his potential cause of action no later than September
2017. His failure to protect his rights cannot be attributed to any action by relators.
Because plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of showing his suit is not
prescribed, the district court erred in denying relators ’ exception. That judgment
must be reversed.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
March 27, 2025 judgment of the district court denying the exception of prescription
filed by Haza Food Louisiana, LLC and The Wendy ’s Company is reversed. The
exception of prescription is granted, and plaintiff ’s suit against Haza Food
Louisiana, LLC and The Wendy’s Company is dismissed with prejudice.