McDonald v. Lee

Citations

• 246 Pa. 253
• 92 A. 135
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 504

Syllabus

<p>Libel — Court and jury — Privileged communication — Malice— Special damage — Physician’s list showing credit of patients — Directed verdict for defendant.</p> <p>1. It is the duty of the court to determine whether words used are libelous per se. If they are not, then in the absence of an averment of special damage, binding instructions are proper.</p> <p>2. In an action against a physician to recover damages for an alleged libel, the court did not err in giving binding instructions for the defendant where it appeared that the defendant belonged to an association of physicians which prepared for the exclusive use of its members a list of the names of patients who were slow in making payments; that defendant caused plaintiffs name to be placed upon such list; that the list was printed, with the numbers of the physicians who furnished the respective names, that there was nothing upon the face of the publication to indicate its purpose, and no one but a member could understand its meaning; that there was no understanding that professional services should be refused to those whose names appeared on the list; and in plaintiffs statement of claim there was no averment of any special damage to plaintiff resulting from the publication, nor was there any proof of such damage, or of any malice in causing the list to be published.</p>