BUSI 336 case study

Case 6.1 McKee v.Laurion (See attached document for case summary)

Review the attached case summary and type responses into a MICROSOFT WORD DOCUMENT. Remember to individually number each response. Upload the document into Blackboard. NOTE: Please do not upload documents in any other format as Blackboard will not recognize them.

1. What are the required elements to establish a claim of defamation? Which party has to plead and prove these elements?

2. How did the court decide this case? What was the court’s reasoning?

3. Suppose that Laurion had posted online, “When I mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real jerk!’ ” Would this statement have been defamatory? Explain.

Case 6.3: Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P.

Review the case summary beginning on page 120 of your text and type responses into a MICROSOFT WORD DOCUMENT. Remember to individually number each response. Upload the document into Blackboard. NOTE: Please do not upload documents in any other format as Blackboard will not recognize them.

1. What is the basis underlying the defense of assumption of risk, and how does that basis support the court’s decision in this case?

2. Had the plaintiff prevailed, how might the venues for baseball be different?

3. Are there any sports events at which a player, spectator, or other participant might not be held to have assumed the risk of an injury? Are there injuries that a participant would likely not have assumed the risk of?

Case Study 6.1: McKee v. Laurion
Case Summary from 13th Edition of Text
BACKGROUND FACTS: Kenneth Laurion was admitted to St. Luke’s Hospital in
Duluth, Minnesota, after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke. Two days later, he was
transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) of St. Luke’s to a private room. The
attending physician arranged for Dr. David McKee, a neurologist, to examine him.
Kenneth’s son, Dennis, and other Laurion family members were present during
the examination.
After Kenneth was discharged from the hospital, Dennis posted the following
statements on “rate- your-doctor” Web sites: [Dr. McKee] seemed upset that my
father had been moved [into a private room]. Never having met my father or his
family, Dr. McKee said, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out
if you transferred or died.” When we gaped at him, he said, “Well, 44 percent of
hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.” When
my father said his gown was just hanging from his neck without a back, Dr. McKee
said, “That doesn’t matter.” My wife said, “It matters to us; let us go into the
hall.”
After learning of the posts, Dr. McKee filed a suit in a Minnesota state court
against Dennis, asserting defamation. The court issued a summary judgment in
Dennis’s favor. A state intermediate appellate court reversed this judgment.
Dennis appealed.
DECISION AND RATIONALE: The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the
lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dennis and reversed
the decision of the intermediate appellate court. The state’s highest court pointed
out that truth is a complete defense to a defamation action and that true
statements, however disparaging, are not actionable. “If the statement is true in
substance, minor inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial. Minor
inaccuracies do not amount to falsities so long as the substance, the gist, the sting
of the libelous charge is justified.”
Dr. McKee acknowledged in his deposition that when he examined Kenneth, he
did communicate to those present that some intensive-care-unit patients die,
although he denied referencing a specific percentage. The court believed that
even without an exact percentage in his statement, Dr. McKee’s statement
satisfied the test “for substantial truth because it would have the same effect on
the reader regard- less of whether a specific percentage reference [or whether
the percentage is accurate].”
The statements by Laurion’s son Dennis were not actionable as defamation. There
was no genuine question as to the falsity of the statements—they were
substantially true.