## Facts

- A motorist sued a trucking company for personal injuries from a collision at an intersection in St. Louis, Missouri.
- The petition alleged the company’s employee-driver negligently caused the truck to strike the plaintiff’s car and alleged failures including careful lookout, speed, warning, braking or swerving, stopping, and yielding the right of way.
- The petition described injuries to the plaintiff’s “neck, back, spine and nervous system,” stated she was “otherwise injured,” and alleged permanent impairment of earning capacity.
- At trial, the plaintiff offered medical evidence that the collision caused elevated blood pressure and a shoulder injury.
- The defendant objected that elevated blood pressure and the shoulder injury were not specifically pleaded as injuries or damages.
- The jury returned a $2,000 verdict for the plaintiff; the trial court entered judgment and denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
- The defendant appealed, challenging the admission of evidence of the unpleaded conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of elevated blood pressure and a shoulder injury when those conditions were not specifically pleaded.
2. Whether those conditions could be recovered as damages without specific pleading because they were an inevitable and necessary result of the injuries alleged in the petition.
3. Whether simplified pleading under the Missouri Civil Code eliminated the requirement to plead special damages with particularity.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- It held the trial court erred in admitting evidence of elevated blood pressure and the shoulder injury because they were not specifically alleged in the petition.
- It rejected the contention that generalized allegations (including “otherwise injured”) or extra-pleading notice to the defendant cured the failure to plead these items.
- It ordered a new trial with both liability and damages open.

## Legal Principles

- Special damages must be specifically stated in the pleadings unless the plaintiff proves the unpleaded condition is the inevitable and necessary result of injuries that were pleaded.
- General allegations of injury (including “otherwise injured”) do not provide sufficient notice to support recovery for distinct, unpleaded conditions treated as special damages.
- Extra-pleading awareness by the defendant does not substitute for the pleading requirement.
- Liberalized pleading under the Missouri Civil Code did not remove the requirement of particularity for special damages.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff introduced evidence of elevated blood pressure and a shoulder injury that were not specifically pleaded and were not shown to necessarily and inevitably flow from the pleaded injuries, the judgment for the plaintiff was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.


Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co., 225 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. Ct. App. 1949)