FELIPE G. FERRER AND C. L. NORTHCUTT D/B/A NORTHCUTT MOTORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAFNE MCMURRY AND JOHN DAVID MCMURRY, HER HUSBAND, 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.
This case reviews whether a trial court properly allowed an amendment to a complaint after all evidence was presented. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the amendment was permissible and did not prejudice the defendants.
No, the trial court did not err. The amendment did not change the cause of action or introduce a new issue, and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice.
[1] A trial court may permit an ore tenus amendment to a complaint at the conclusion of all evidence if the amendment does not change the cause of action or introduce an enti…
[2] Amendments to pleadings are liberally construed to allow for the determination of cases on their merits.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We are called upon by this appeal to review the propriety of a trial court permitting an ore tenus amendment to plaintiffs’ complaint at the conclusion of all their evidence.”
This quote introduces the central issue of the appeal regarding the amendment of the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued for gross negligence after a passenger was injured in a motor vehicle. At the close of evidence, the trial court considered granting a…
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 Guest Passenger Status cases and more on FLexlaw
We are called upon by this appeal to review the propriety of a trial court permitting an ore tenus amendment to plaintiffs’ complaint at the conclusion of all their evidence. The original complaint (as amended) sounded in tort and alleged gross negligence by the operator of a motor vehicle, resulting in injury to a passenger. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court indicated it would grant the defendants’ motion for directed verdict because the injured party was in fact a guest passenger and because of the failure of the plaintiffs to establish gross negligence. Thereupon, the trial court permitted an ore tenus motion reducing the plea of gross negligence in the complaint to that of simple negligence. At no time did the complaint or its amendments indicate that the injured party was a guest passenger. The matter was submitted to the jury as to the status of the passenger and the issue as to simple negligence. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, and this appeal ensued. The sole point preserved for review was the propriety of the trial court permitting the ore tenus amendment. We affirm.
The granting of the amendment did not change the cause of action; did not put in issue something that was not already there, to wit: the status of the injured party as a passenger. And, under Rule 1.190(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., and its liberal interpretations [Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Edenfield, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 204; Richards v. West, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 698; Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 285, quashed on other grounds Fla., 159 So.2d 236; Conk-lin v. Smith, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 311; Compare Trans World Marine Corporation v. Threlkeld, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 614], the appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed error to the prejudice of their case.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict and final judgment thereon be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duarte v. Stevens Mkts., Inc., 159 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1963)
- Richards v. West, 110 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hart Props., Inc. v. Slack, 145 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Trans World Marine Corp. v. Major E. Threlkeld & Tortuga Marine Salvage Corp., 201 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Wallace Conklin et ux. v. Deane Smith, 191 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)