requirements set out in Rule 1.442(c), although they are not identical. Rule 1.442(c)(2)(C) requires, for example, that the proposal “state with particularity any relevant conditions.” Of pivotal importance in the present case is this language in the rule: “A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3). Ms. Dudley was the real party in interest below insofar as her own, individual claims were concerned. But she was not the real party in interest insofar as her son’s claims were concerned. She was asserting his claims as his representative. See Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So.2d 503, 505-06 (Fla.1956) (<HOLDING>); Wilkie v. Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064, 109 So. 225,
holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action holding that res judicata did not prevent a fathers bringing an individual action for medical expenses incurred in treating his childs injuries even though an action the father had brought as next friend for his child resulted in an adverse jury verdict holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action holding that denial of a request for reimbursement for travel expenses did not constitute an adverse employment action holding that a minor who initiated an action through her next friend within the applicable oneyear limitations period seeking damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident was permitted to amend her action to add another defendant even after that oneyear period expired because her right to maintain an action would continue for one year after she reached the age of majority