251 La. 749, 206 So.2d 95 (1968); American Metal Window Co. v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 183 So.2d 667, 669 (La.App. 1st Cir.1966). 12 . Duet v. Lucky, 621 So.2d 168, 173 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993) (noting that absent evidence substantiating alleged mistake in intent, no reason exists to look beyond four comers of document); Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939, 941 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992) (noting that "the language of the release is so broad and unambiguous it leaves little to be misunderstood”); Barnhill v. Consolidated Medical, Disability & Life Trust, 569 So.2d 1115, 1117 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 93 (La.1991) (finding language of release so broad as to clearly cover liability sued upon); Shepherd v. Allstate Ins. Co., 562 So.2d 1099, 1102 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Watkins v. lohns-Manville Corp., 458 So.2d
holding plaintiff could not avoid release absent evidence he made reasonable effort to have document read to him holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission holding that to be valid and binding a release must be executed with full knowledge of the import of what is being signed and with the intent to discharge from liability holding that inaction was not a sufficient manifestation of consent to support a release holding unambiguous release executed by literate intelligent party could not be nullified absent vice of consent