Citation: 225 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. App. 1950)
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Parties
In the case of Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co, the plaintiff was Ollie Ziervogel, who brought a personal injury suit against the defendant, Royal Packing Co., the employer of a truck driver involved in the collision that gave rise to the case.
Facts of Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co
The facts in Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co involve a motor vehicle accident between a car driven by the plaintiff, Ollie Ziervogel, and a truck operated by an employee of Royal Packing Co. The collision occurred at an intersection, with the defendant’s driver found to be at fault for causing the accident.
In her petition, the plaintiff specifically alleged injuries to her neck, back, spine, and nervous system. She also claimed that her earning capacity was permanently impaired as a consequence of the accident. However, during trial proceedings, the plaintiff introduced evidence relating to additional injuries, specifically a shoulder injury and elevated blood pressure, which were not mentioned or pleaded in her original petition.
The defendant challenged the admission of evidence regarding these unpleaded injuries, arguing that the plaintiff should be barred from recovering damages for injuries that were not explicitly claimed in her pleadings. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and a new trial, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence of the shoulder injury and elevated blood pressure. The defendant subsequently appealed this decision.
Procedural History
Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,000. The defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the trial court erred by permitting evidence of injuries not specifically pled by the plaintiff, namely the shoulder injury and elevated blood pressure. The motion for mistrial was denied. The defendant also moved for a new trial, which was likewise denied.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s rulings, the defendant appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, raising the primary issue of whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of injuries that were not specifically stated in the plaintiff’s petition.
Issue
The central legal question in Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co was whether the trial court committed error by admitting evidence regarding injuries—shoulder injury and elevated blood pressure—that were not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in her petition.
More precisely, the court was tasked with determining if evidence of such unpleaded injuries could be introduced at trial and whether the plaintiff could recover damages related to those injuries absent specific pleadings.
Rule of Law
The Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 55.19 requires that “items of special damage shall be specifically stated” in the pleadings. This rule distinguishes between general damages and special damages:
- General damages are injuries or losses that the law implies and naturally flow from the harm alleged. For example, injuries such as a shoulder injury from a car accident may be considered general damages because they are the natural consequence of the collision.
- Special damages, on the other hand, are injuries or losses that do not necessarily or naturally flow from the harm alleged and thus must be pleaded with particularity. Elevated blood pressure, which does not inherently or inevitably result from a car accident, falls into this category.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, in Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co, relied on the precedent set by State ex rel. Grisham v. Allen, which held that special damages must be specifically pleaded before evidence relating to them can be admitted at trial. This precedent ensures that defendants receive adequate notice of the claims against them, preventing plaintiffs from “ambushing” defendants by raising new claims during trial.
The court also referenced the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g), which maintains the distinction between general damages and special damages. According to Rule 9(g), general damages may be alleged without particularity, while special damages require detailed pleading.
Application
In applying these rules to the facts of Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co, the court examined whether the injuries to the plaintiff’s shoulder and elevated blood pressure were properly pleaded or otherwise admissible.
The plaintiff’s petition explicitly mentioned injuries to her neck, back, spine, and nervous system but made no mention of a shoulder injury or elevated blood pressure. The court determined that while a shoulder injury might reasonably be inferred as a general damage resulting from the car accident, the elevated blood pressure did not naturally or inevitably result from the injuries pleaded.
Because elevated blood pressure was classified as a special damage, it was required to be specifically pleaded in the petition to be admissible at trial. The plaintiff failed to do so and did not amend her pleadings to include it. Moreover, no evidence was introduced at trial establishing that the elevated blood pressure was an inevitable or necessary consequence of the injuries she did allege.
Similarly, the evidence related to the shoulder injury was also challenged as it was not mentioned in the pleadings. Although shoulder injuries may be considered general damages, the court emphasized the need for clarity and strict adherence to pleading requirements to protect defendants from surprise claims.
Thus, the court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of both the shoulder injury and the elevated blood pressure without the injuries being properly pleaded or demonstrated as necessarily connected to the pleaded injuries.
Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co Judgment
The Missouri Court of Appeals held in Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence concerning injuries that were not specifically stated in the plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff could not recover damages for the elevated blood pressure or the shoulder injury since these injuries were not properly pleaded, nor was it proven that they were inevitable results of the pleaded injuries.
The plaintiff’s subsequent motion for rehearing or transfer to the Supreme Court was denied.
Conclusion
The case of Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co underscores the importance of strict compliance with pleading requirements, particularly concerning special damages. It affirms the legal principle that special damages must be specifically alleged in the pleadings to afford the defendant fair notice of the claims.
The decision in Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co reaffirms that evidence of injuries not pleaded, and not shown to be a natural or inevitable consequence of pleaded injuries, is inadmissible. This case serves as a caution to plaintiffs and their counsel to clearly articulate all claims for damages in the complaint and to amend pleadings promptly when additional injuries or damages arise.