ERIC COX, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, J. W. CALDWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, 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.
Minor filed successive wrongful death actions against a railroad for injuries sustained in a train-car collision that killed his parents. After the statute of limitations expired, he sought to amend his second wrongful death complaint to add a personal injury claim. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the amendment, holding that a personal injury claim is a separate and distinct cause of action that cannot relate back to the filing date of the wrongful death complaint.
The court held that a personal injury claim is a separate and distinct cause of action from a wrongful death claim, and therefore amendment to add the personal injury claim would not relate back to the date of the original wrongful death complaint. The trial court properly denied the motion to amend because the amendment would introduce new issues and vary the grounds for relief.
[1] An amendment to a pleading will not be allowed if it changes an issue, introduces new issues, or materially varies the grounds of relief.
[2] A personal injury cause of action is distinct from a wrongful death cause of action arising from the same accident.
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“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”
Establishes the general relation-back doctrine but does not authorize assertion of new and different causes of action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA train-car collision caused injuries to minor Eric Cox and killed both his parents. Minor first brought suit for his mother's wrongful death and reco…
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
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal, we affirm the trial court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint to assert a separate and distinct cause of action. The action arose from a train-car collision in which minor suffered personal injuries and minor’s parents were killed. Minor brought suit for the wrongful death of his mother, and recovered. Minor then brought suit for the wrongful death of the father. After this second wrongful death action had been pending for three years, minor sought to amend his complaint to assert his cause of action for personal injuries. By the time of this attempted amendment, the period of the statute of limitations had run and barred any separate action for the personal injuries. The trial court denied minor’s motion for leave to amend based upon the court’s ruling that the amendment would not relate back to the filing of the original complaint and hence the claim would be barred by the statute of limitations.
While it is established that: “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)], it is equally well established that this does not authorize a plaintiff, under the guise of an amendment, to state a new and different cause of action. Gables Racing Ass’n v. Persky, 131 Fla. 842, 180 So. 24 (1938). Consequently, an amendment will not be allowed if the amendment will change an issue, introduce new issues, or materially vary the grounds of relief. United States v. State, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
Minor’s personal injury action is a different cause of action than his wrongful death cause of action. In Bowie v. Reynolds, 161 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), the court held that a plaintiff entitled to bring a wrongful death action after an accident in which the plaintiff also suffered personal injuries, may assert his common law personal injury action as a cause of action separate and distinct from the statutory wrongful death cause of action. The second suit was not subject to dismissal as a splitting of a cause of action.
Minor’s amendment would have introduced new issues and varied the grounds for relief. In Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, 88 So. 2d 591 (Fla.1956), our supreme court recognized that the plaintiff’s right to maintain an action for personal injuries required proof of some different essential facts than the plaintiff’s wrongful death action arising from the same accident. Under the facts of that case, the court held that although estoppel by judgment barred re-litigation of the identical facts actually presented at trial of the first cause of action, res judicata would not apply to the second action.
The trial court, sub judice, did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the proposed amendment would present a different cause of action, new issues, and varied grounds for relief. Consequently, the trial court’s ruling that the amendment would not relate back to the date of filing the wrongful death complaint was proper, as was denial of leave to file 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 the plaintiff’s separate cause of action which could have been asserted by separate suit brought at any time within the statutory period. This is not a case such as where amendment to an answer is sought to assert a compulsory counterclaim which could not be asserted in any suit other than the original action.
The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for leave to amend is hereby
AFFIRMED.
GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Odie Bell Daniels v. Malcolm H. Weiss, M.D., 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ions had run. We find this point to be well taken. An amendment to the pleadings does not relate back to the date the original complaint was filed if the amendment states a new cause of action or adds a new party. Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Doyle v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, 369 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Although a claim for loss of consortium is a derivative cause of action, it nevertheless is a separate action. See: Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40…
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…uld be permitted liberally, one cannot defeat the bar of the statute of limitations by filing a new cause of action labelled as an amended complaint. The rule of liberality does not authorize a new cause of action. Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Versen v. Versen, 347 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). It is obvious that the amended complaint in the present case not only alleged a different cause of action from that alleged in the original complaint, but it was also filed…
-
Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 145 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). A determination whether an amended complaint arises out of the same general facts and thus relates back is reviewed de novo. Id. at 147-48. The tobacco companies cite to Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 360 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), in support of then-argument that the wrongful death claim should not relate back. In Cox, a minor and his parents were involved in a train-car collision. 360 So. 2d at 9. The minor brought a wrongful death action for the death of…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Inc., 88 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1956)
- United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Handley v. Anclote Manor Found., 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Gables Racing Assoc., Inc. v. Persky, 131 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1938)
- Bowie v. Reynolds, 161 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- State v. City of Dunedin, 131 Fla. 857 (Fla. 1938)