Pennsylvania Trial Court Holds Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in Motor Vehicle Injury Case Met Specificity Requirements Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3)

The plaintiff alleged in their amended complaint that they suffered “other injuries, the extent of which is not yet known.” The defendant raised a specificity objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 1028(a)(3). Upon reviewing the record, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and citing substantive state case law, the Washington County Court of Common Pleas noted that in order to determine whether an allegation in a pleading contains the appropriate level of specificity, it looks not only to that specific allegation, but also that allegation in the context of other allegations in the complaint.

Here, after considering all of the allegations of the amended complaint, the court held that the plaintiff sufficiently complied with the pleading rules. More specifically, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had specifically detailed at least 13 allegations of negligence, identified specific injuries to identified body parts, and detailed subjective symptoms along with objective signs of those injuries. Further, the court held that the plaintiff was not required to plead evidentiary facts. In support of this holding, it highlighted that physical injuries, medical expenses and lost wages may be plead generally.

Lastly, the court addressed the defendant’s argument that he should not be put in the position of learning of a new injury claim at trial. The court dismissed this argument by pointing out that discovery and pre-trial statement requirements will protect defendants from being ambushed by new injury claims at trial.

The court overruled the defendant’s preliminary objection that the plaintiff’s amended complaint lacked the requisite level of specificity under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.