LILAH G. PETERS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FRED M. PETERS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY D. MITCHEL, M.D., SYLVAN R. LEWIS, M.D., AND PARKWAY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a minor child's wrongful death claim that was added to his mother's original complaint after the statute of limitations expired. The court held that the amendment relating to the same transaction or occurrence relates back to the date of the original complaint under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c).
The court held that the amended complaint asserting the minor child's claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading and therefore relates back to the date of the original complaint, making the claim timely despite being added after the statute of limitations expired.
[1] A court abuses its discretion by disallowing amendment of a pleading unless the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or a…
[2] A party's failure to allege negligence in a personal injury complaint can generally be cured by amendment, even after the statute of limitations has expired, if the amend…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the claim asserted in the amended complaint arises "out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading" so as to relate back to the date of the original complaint as provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c)”
States the legal standard for relation back of amendments under Florida rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLilah Peters, as personal representative of her deceased husband Fred M. Peters' estate, filed a wrongful death action within the statute of limitatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relation Back Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant Lilah Peters seeks reversal of two trial court orders dismissing her amended complaint joining Jeffrey Peters, minor son of Lilah and the decedent, as a plaintiff in a wrongful death action.
The original complaint by appellant as personal representative of the decedent’s estate was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. After the statutory period had run, the trial court granted appellant leave to amend to include Jeffrey’s claim, but subsequently dismissed the claim, upon separate motions by the hospital and the physicians, as barred by the statute of limitations. Appeals from the two orders were consolidated by this court.
We reverse the trial court’s orders and hold that the claim asserted in the amended complaint arises “out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading” so as to relate back to the date of the original complaint as provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c).
Dye v. Houston, 421 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (amendment joining decedent’s widow in wrongful death action after limitation period had run related back to date of original complaint); Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So. 2d 445 (Fla.1972) (amendment joining guardian of decedent’s son — same); cf. Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (amendment to pleading did not relate back to date of original complaint since spouse’s claim for loss of consortium, although derivative in nature, stated a separate cause of action from claim for medical malpractice); Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1979) (amendment to pleading asserting minor’s own personal injuries in suit for wrongful death of his father presented new cause of action and did not relate back to date of filing of complaint).
Our holding makes it unnecessary to decide whether, as appellant also contends, the amendment was filed within the statute of limitations.
Reversed and remanded with directions to proceed with the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…orate fiduciary. . This is much the same rationale that permits liberal post-limitations period amendment of complaints to include additional plaintiffs and concomitant enlargement of damages in wrongful death actions. See, e.g., Peters v. Mitchel, 423 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dye v. Houston, 421 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So. 2d 445 (Fla.1972). But see School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 14…
-
Talan v. Murphy, 443 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…(1981), will also relate back. See Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1972). Thus, the personal representative’s claim for damages sustained by his wife, see Peters v. Mitchel, 423 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dye v. Houston, 421 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), as well as medical, funeral, and burial expenses and loss of net accumulations is viable without a statute of limitations bar. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the e…
-
Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…f limitations. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c). To relate back, the claim must arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” See Maraj v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 989 So. 2d 682, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also [*148] Peters v. Mitchel, 423 So. 2d 983, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Meltsner v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 177 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). The doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends. See C.H. v. Whitney, 987 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Ron’s Quality Towing,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odie Bell Daniels v. Malcolm H. Weiss, M.D., 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Handley v. Anclote Manor Found., 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- COX v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Gene's Harvesting & Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 421 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State OF Fla. Pollution Control Bd. v. Gables BY THE SEA, Inc., 262 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1972)