differences, which they might have had with one another, the titles which they then know nothing of and which were afterwards discovered, are not a cause of rescinding the transaction, unless they have been kept concealed on purpose by the deed of the parties. But the transaction becomes void, if it relates only to an object upon which it is provided by the titles newly discovered, that one of the parties has no right at all. 24 . Hicks v. Fidelity-Southern Fire Ins. Co., 251 So.2d 526 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971) (finding plaintiff's claim that he was unaware of full extent of loss at time signed release insufficient to invalidate general release of all claims arising out of particular event. Hurricane Betsy); Jurado v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 557 So.2d 266, 268 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Ingram, 698 F.2d at 1322 (noting
holding purposely inflicts  serious injury and intended to cause serious injury convey the same specific intent such that it is impossible to commit one without the other holding a plaintiff cannot avoid exhaustion simply because he or she asks for damages holding that decision cannot be ignored simply because review is being sought holding that release cannot be rescinded simply because plaintiff later learns she had a more serious injury holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim