Case Name: Carol KAIRALLA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Kairalla, Deceased, Appellant, v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation, C & F Management, Inc., Miami Elevator Company and Communications By Johnson, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-11-16
Citations: 534 So. 2d 774
Docket Number: Case No. 87-1618
Parties: Carol KAIRALLA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Kairalla, Deceased, Appellant, v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation, C & F Management, Inc., Miami Elevator Company and Communications By Johnson, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: LETTS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 774–776

Head Matter:
Carol KAIRALLA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Kairalla, Deceased, Appellant, v. JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MacARTHUR FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation, C & F Management, Inc., Miami Elevator Company and Communications By Johnson, Inc., Appellees.
Case No. 87-1618.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 16, 1988.
Kocha & Jones, P.A., and Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee— Communications by Johnson, Inc.

Opinion:
GUNTHER, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals the dismissal with prejudice of Count V of her complaint for negligence. We reverse.
The trial court dismissed with prejudice the defendant, Communications By Johnson, Inc. (Johnson), on the basis that Count V of the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action because it lacked sufficient allegations of proximate cause. Although Johnson was named as a defendant in the lawsuit for the first time in Count V of the amended complaint, the plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity to amend that count.
This court has held on numerous occasions that a dismissal with prejudice should not be ordered without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the defective pleading, unless it is apparent that the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action. Kern v. Martz, 462 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Delia and Wilson, Inc. v. Wilson, 448 So.2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hansen v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 348 So.2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
In the instant case, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff could not remedy the defect in her pleadings by amendment. However, it is not apparent to us that the pleading could not be amended to state a cause of action. In our view, the plaintiff should have at least one opportunity to amend her pleadings to more specifically address the causal connection between the inoperable phones and the decedent's death.
We hold that the trial court erred in dismissing Count Y with prejudice without providing the plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend that count. We reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to permit the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.