PENN CORK AND CLOSURES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PIGGYBACK SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Penn Cork sought damages for goods damaged in shipment under the Interstate Commerce Act and negligence. The trial court denied Penn Cork's motion to substitute the correct bill of lading for an incorrect one that was inadvertently attached to its sixth amended complaint, and entered summary judgment against Penn Cork. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to substitute. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to allow the substitution of exhibits.
[1] Leave to amend pleadings should be given freely when justice so requires.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to substitute an exhibit when the mistake does not substantively affect the cause of action or the rights of the o…
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“leave to amend should be "given freely when justice so requires"”
Establishes the liberal standard for amendments under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePenn Cork filed its sixth amended complaint in an action for damages to goods in shipment, attaching a bill of lading to the complaint. At deposition,…
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 Prejudice To Non-Moving Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant plaintiff seeks review of an adverse summary judgment in its action for damages to goods in shipment under the Interstate Commerce Act and also sounding in negligence.
Appellant filed its sixth amended complaint1 alleging as the basis for one count of its action a bill of lading attached to the complaint. At deposition, it appeared that the wrong bill had been attached inadvertently. However, the correct bill was available and identified and appellant moved to substitute it for the erroneously attached document. No other changes in the complaint were requested. Appellant’s motion to substitute was denied and final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee. We reverse.
It is unnecessary to recite the numerous decisions of the courts of this state regarding the liberality in the granting of amendments to pleadings. R.C.P. 1.190, 30 F.S.A., is clear enough when it states that leave to amend should be “given freely when justice so requires”. The mistake herein dealt solely with substitution of an incorrect document prior to trial and did not substantively affect the cause of action or rights of the appellee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the best interests of justice required the granting of appellant’s motion. To do otherwise was an *47abuse of the trial judge's discretion. The test of finding that point wherein the moving party has abused his privilege to amend is not a mere counting up of the number of chances that he has already been given. The test must go more to the substance of the error and the possible prejudice that might result to the non-moving party. In the case sub judice, the nature of the error was such that the remedy prayed for by appellant would not have changed the cause of action and would not have in any way delayed the proceedings. Nor can we say that the interests of the appellee would have been in any manner prejudiced.
Accordingly, the final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee is reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to allow the appellant to substitute exhibits.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…h DCA 1981), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982); Wackenhut Protective Systems, Inc. v. Key Biscayne Commodore Club Condominium I, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Penn Cork & Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Ass’n of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). As stated in Dixie Farms v. Timmons, supra, [A]n amendment [of the complaint at the end of plaintiff’s evidence to conform to the evidence presented] is one that calls for the exercise of a trial court’s careful discretion in or…
-
Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…f the amendment privilege by Fixel, allowing the claim to be asserted in the Third Amended Complaint was appropriate. Hall v. Wojechowski, 312 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Penn Cork and Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Ass’n of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
-
Wackenhut Protective Sys., Inc. v. KEY Biscayne Commodore Club Condo. I, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…amend should be granted or denied. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Feagin, 93 Fla. 1015, 113 So. 89 (1927); Carroll v. Gore, 106 Fla. 582, 143 So. 633 (1932); and Penn Cork & Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Assoc, of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which Florida patterned its Rules of Civil Procedure, the test also is that of prejudice to the defendant. See Deakyne v. Commissioners of Lewes, 416 F. 2d 290 (3d Cir. 1969). In t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence