Carey v. St. Louis Journalism Review

861 S.W.2d 326, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 1993 WL 308944

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. See, Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.