## Facts

- Gavin L. McDonald, a minor acting through a guardian ad litem, participated in a Ventura County spelling bee connected to the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee and sponsored/hosted locally by John P. Scripps Newspaper and related defendants.
- During the competition, one contestant (McDonald’s eventual opponent) was initially disqualified after judges ruled he misspelled a word.
- The judges later learned the contestant had spelled an accepted variant of the word and reinstated him in the competition.
- McDonald ultimately finished second after he misspelled a word.
- McDonald sued the newspaper and related defendants, alleging the contest rules formed a contract with participants and that defendants breached that contract by reinstating the opponent.
- McDonald further alleged that losing under those circumstances humiliated and mortified him, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Did the complaint state a viable claim that the spelling-bee rules created an enforceable contract that was breached by reinstating McDonald’s opponent?
2. Even if a contractual duty (or other legal duty) existed, did McDonald plead facts showing non-speculative causation and legally recoverable damages from the reinstatement decision?
3. Did the trial court properly sustain the demurrer without leave to amend?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
- The court concluded the complaint failed because it did not plausibly allege causation: McDonald lost the spelling bee because he misspelled a word, and the claim that he would have won absent the reinstated contestant was speculative.
- The court also rejected the attempt to turn disappointment and embarrassment from losing a voluntary competition into compensable damages (including punitive damages) on these pleadings.
- Because the defects were fundamental and could not be cured by amendment, denying leave to amend was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff must plead facts showing causation; allegations that depend on “what would have happened” in a contest are insufficient when the plaintiff’s own performance independently caused the loss.
- Damages are not recoverable when the claimed injury rests on speculation about an alternate outcome rather than concrete facts showing the defendant’s conduct changed the result.
- Humiliation or mortification from losing a competition, without an actionable legal wrong that caused compensable harm, does not support recovery of compensatory damages; punitive damages are not available absent a proper basis beyond a deficient contract-style claim.
- A demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend when the complaint’s shortcomings cannot be fixed by additional pleading.

## Conclusion

McDonald’s complaint was dismissed because, regardless of how the judges handled the opponent’s temporary disqualification and reinstatement, McDonald could not allege a non-speculative causal link between that decision and his second-place finish, and his claimed humiliation from losing the spelling bee did not amount to legally recoverable damages on the facts pleaded.


McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper, 257 Cal. Rptr. 473 (1989)