## Facts

- Fawcett Publications, Inc., a non-Oklahoma corporation, published *True* magazine.
- *True* ran an article titled “The Pill That Can Kill Sports,” describing amphetamine use in athletics and referencing the 1956 University of Oklahoma football team as an example.
- The article asserted in substance that members of that team used amphetamine pills and other drugs in connection with games, implying the team was “doped.”
- Dennit Morris, a fullback on the 1956 team, was not named in the article but was a known team member.
- Morris alleged the publication falsely imputed criminal and immoral conduct to him, exposed him to public contempt, and injured his reputation; he sued for libel per se seeking general and punitive damages.
- *True* was distributed in Oklahoma through Mid-Continent News Company; evidence showed Fawcett controlled key distribution terms, including pricing, sales dates, shipment quantities, returns/credits for unsold copies, and sales monitoring.

## Issues

1. Whether Oklahoma courts had personal jurisdiction over Fawcett as a foreign corporation based on “doing business” in Oklahoma.
2. Whether the article was defamatory on its face and thus libelous per se under the “average lay reader” standard.
3. Whether Morris could sue individually for defamation of a group when he was not named but was a member of the referenced team.
4. Whether the publication was protected by qualified (conditional) privilege.
5. Whether evidence of Fawcett’s financial worth was admissible and whether the general damages award was excessive.
6. Whether the distributor, Mid-Continent News Company, could be held liable for the publication.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed jurisdiction over Fawcett, holding its in-state distribution controls and related activities constituted “doing business” in Oklahoma.
- The court held the article was libelous per se because, to the average reader, it imputed serious wrongdoing without need for extrinsic explanation.
- The court held Morris could maintain an individual action because the referenced group was sufficiently limited and evidence supported that readers would understand the article to include him.
- The court rejected qualified/conditional privilege, finding the elements of a privileged communication, occasion, and audience were not established.
- The court upheld admission of evidence of Fawcett’s financial worth because punitive damages were properly in issue, and affirmed the $75,000 general damages verdict as not excessive.
- The court affirmed the directed verdict for Mid-Continent, leaving the distributor free of liability on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign corporation is amenable to suit in Oklahoma when an important combination of business functions is performed in the state, including exercising control and discretion over marketing and distribution.
- A publication is libelous per se if, measured by its natural and probable effect on the mind of the average lay reader, it is clearly defamatory on its face.
- Whether a publication is defamatory per se and whether it applies to a particular plaintiff are distinct questions; the former is determined from the publication itself, the latter from evidence showing it was understood to refer to the plaintiff.
- In group-defamation cases, an individual member may sue when group size and surrounding circumstances make it likely the plaintiff was understood to be among those defamed and likely to have been harmed.
- Conditional privilege requires a privileged communication made on a privileged occasion by a privileged person to an audience within the privilege.
- When punitive damages are properly in issue, evidence of a defendant’s financial worth is admissible; general damages for libel per se are largely for the jury and are disturbed only when excessive.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a libel per se judgment against an out-of-state magazine publisher, holding the publisher’s controlled distribution in Oklahoma supported jurisdiction, the article’s drug allegations were defamatory on their face, and an individual team member could recover despite not being named, while affirming dismissal of the distributor and upholding the general damages award.


Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, 377 P.2d 42 (Okla. 1962)