Case Name: Diosa RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. DI LIDO BEACH HOTEL CORPORATION, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-12-29
Citations: 750 So. 2d 116
Docket Number: Nos. 99-774, 99-773
Parties: Diosa RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. DI LIDO BEACH HOTEL CORPORATION, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 750
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Diosa RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. DI LIDO BEACH HOTEL CORPORATION, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 99-774, 99-773.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 29, 1999.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 2000.
Gregory S. Starr, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Conroy, Simberg & Ganon and Brian P. Knight, Hollywood, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the present circumstances, in which the errors in the complaint were or should have been known by the defense before, but were not called to the plaintiffs or the court's attention until after the statute of limitations had run, and there was no other prejudice, the principles stated in Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979) and Sobel v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 459 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), require the reversal of the orders of dismissal entered below with directions to permit amendments to the complaint to reflect the correct location of the accident and the name of the responsible party defendant, with the amendments deemed to relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. See Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So.2d 190, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 895 (Fla.1967).
Reversed and remanded with directions.