Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
375 So. 2d 1319 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio suspends the running of the prescriptive period (statute of limitations) when a defendant's tortious conduct causes the plaintiff's mental incapacity, thereby preventing the plaintiff from timely filing a lawsuit.
Facts:
- James Corsey was a prisoner at the Louisiana state penitentiary under the custody of the State Department of Corrections.
- On June 18, 1972, Corsey was stabbed multiple times by another inmate.
- He received medical treatment from a fellow inmate, not a doctor, and was ordered to return to duty the same day.
- The next day, Corsey was forced to work in the cotton fields, where he collapsed from a heatstroke.
- As a result of the stabbing and subsequent events, Corsey suffered severe brain injuries that rendered him mentally incapacitated.
- Corsey remained mentally incapacitated and unaware of his condition or his potential legal remedies until July 1973, over a year after the initial injury.
Procedural Posture:
- James Corsey filed a tort suit against the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, in trial court on June 25, 1974, more than one year after his injury on June 18, 1972.
- The defendants filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing the one-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed Corsey's suit.
- Corsey, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the suit was prescribed.
- Corsey sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the lower courts' decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of contra non valentem suspend the one-year prescriptive period for a tort claim when the defendant's tortious conduct itself caused the plaintiff's mental incapacity, preventing him from filing suit within that year?
Opinions:
Majority - Tate, J.
Yes, the doctrine of contra non valentem suspends the prescriptive period under these circumstances. The principle that prescription does not run against a party who is unable to act is especially applicable where the plaintiff's inability to act is a direct result of the defendant's own tortious conduct. The court extended the third category of contra non valentem—where the defendant's own act prevents the plaintiff from suing—to include situations where the initial tort itself, and not a separate act of concealment, causes the plaintiff's incapacity. To allow prescription to run would permit a defendant to profit from its own wrong, which is inadmissible in law. There is no rational distinction between a defendant preventing a suit through subsequent concealment and preventing a suit because the initial tort rendered the plaintiff mentally incapable of acting.
Dissenting - Summers, C.J.
No, the doctrine of contra non valentem should not suspend the prescriptive period. Louisiana Civil Code article 3521 states that prescription runs against all persons unless an exception is established by law. The only relevant legal exception is for minors and interdicted persons, and Corsey was not interdicted. The court's application of contra non valentem has been traditionally restricted to cases where the defendant concealed the cause of action or misled the plaintiff. Here, the injury was immediately apparent, and the defendants did not engage in any separate acts of concealment. Creating a new judicial exception undermines the certainty of prescriptive periods established by the legislature.
Dissenting - Marcus, J.
No, the doctrine should not be extended in this manner. All previous applications of contra non valentem involved conduct by the defendant, separate from the original tort, that prevented the plaintiff from pursuing a claim. The majority's decision extends the doctrine to a situation where the tort itself causes the incapacity, which is an unwarranted expansion. Furthermore, allowing an exception because the plaintiff was incarcerated affords him an advantage over law-abiding citizens who might suffer similar tort-caused incapacities.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the application of the equitable doctrine of contra non valentem in Louisiana law. Previously, the doctrine was primarily applied when a defendant engaged in a separate act, such as concealment or fraud, to prevent a plaintiff from filing suit. Corsey establishes that the initial tort itself can serve as the preventative act if it causes the plaintiff's mental inability to sue. This creates a crucial exception to the statute of limitations, particularly for vulnerable plaintiffs, such as prisoners, who are in the custody and care of the potential defendant.
