LEON H. HANDLEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANNA POST WILKINSON, (DECEASED), AND JOHN NEAL WILKINSON, III, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF JOHN NEAL WILKINSON, IV, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANCLOTE MANOR FOUNDATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RONALD M. BACCUS, M.D., 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 court addressed whether an amended complaint adding a new plaintiff and asserting a wrongful death claim relates back to the original complaint filed within the statute of limitations period. The court held that under Florida's relation-back doctrine, the amendment should relate back to the date of original filing when it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.
An amended pleading asserting a wrongful death claim should relate back to the date of the original filing when the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. The amendment relates back under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) because the wrongful death claim arises from the same factual allegations as the original complaint.
[1] An amended pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or o…
[2] Amendments to pleadings are liberally construed to allow relation back when the amendment arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original plead…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.”
States the governing rule from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) upon which the court's holding depends.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe administrator of a decedent's estate brought an action for damages from the decedent's death. After the two-year period for filing a new action ha…
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 Of Amended Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
This action was brought by the decedent’s administrator to recover damages for her death. After the two-year period during which a new action might be filed, an amended complaint was filed joining the guardian of decedent’s son as plaintiff and seeking recovery under the wrongful death statute. The precise question whether such an amendment relates back to the original filing seems never to have been raised in Florida, and the trial judge granted summary final judgment so that the question could be posed on appeal prior to trial.
“When the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.” Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.190(c), 30 F.S.A. The Author’s Comment at 30 F.S.A. p. 273 elaborates: “The principle of relation back of amended pleadings existed in prior law, but it was limited to an amendment which did not state a new cause of action. The harshness of the rule was modified by a liberal construction of a ‘cause of action.’ In accord with this liberal application of the principle, the rule requires only that the amendment arise out of the ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ set forth in the original pleading.”
It seems clear to us upon consideration of the rule and cases decided in Florida and federal courts1 that such an amendment as this should relate back to the date of original filing. This view is consistent with the general policy of the Rules. There has been no prejudice shown. The defendants knew upon the filing of the original complaint that there was a child who survived the decedent and who might plausibly claim under the wrongful death statute on the same allegations of fact. There is no surprise, and in our view the consistent interpretation of our Rules would require the trial court to permit the amended complaint to stand as of the date of the original complaint’s filing.
Reversed and remanded.
PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…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 147 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1146 (Fla.1981). That the wrongful death action presents a unique situation is…
-
Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's OF Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rrect defendant was sued” the doctrine of relation-back is appropriate.). It is well settled that the relation back rule is to be liberally construed. Savage, 627 So. 2d at 1332; Schachner, 616 So. 2d at 168 (citing Handley v. Anclote Manor Found., 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)). We repeat, as we did in Savage Construction Corp. and Gardner v. Broward County, 631 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the Florida Supreme Court’s admonishment in Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Co., 89 So. 2d 662, 664 (Fla.1956)…
-
COX v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…ile the proposed amendment. We are aware of the liberality to be accorded a motion for leave to amend the pleadings and the liberal construction of “cause of action” to permit relation back of the amendment. See Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190, Author’s Comments (relation back), but compare 1954 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.15. However, we do not see that this rule should be so liberally construed as to allow a plaintiff to circumvent the statute of limitations on…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Missouri v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1913)
- Allen Williams b/n/f Louise J. Smyre v. United States, 405 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1954)
- Keel v. Brown, 162 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Brown v. Wood, 202 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Russell v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. & Consumers Pub. Power Dist., 303 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1962)
- Lindy's OF Orlando, Inc. v. United Elec. Co., 239 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)