State v. McKown
Minnesota Court of Appeals
530 N.W.2d 807 (1995)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Ian Lundman suffered from juvenile-onset diabetes, and Ian’s mother, Kathleen McKown, (defendant) noticed that Ian had lost weight and lacked his normal energy. On May 6, 1989, Ian complained to his mother that he had a stomachache. In keeping with her Christian Science faith, McKown treated Ian through prayer. Ian continued to complain of a stomachache. McKown consulted Mario Tosto and Quinna Lamb (defendant), journal-listed practitioners recommended by the Christian Science Church. Ian was unable to sleep and continued to lose weight because he was unable to keep food down. McKown and Ian’s stepfather, William McKown (defendant), made several calls to Christian Science Church officials including James Van Horn (defendant) and to a Christian Science nursing home, Clifton House. Ian died on May 9, 1989. Kathleen and William McKown were charged with second-degree criminal manslaughter, but the district court dismissed the charges. However, Douglass Lundman, Ian’s father, commenced a wrongful-death action naming William and Kathleen McKown, Mario Tosto, James Van Horn, Clifton House, and the First Church of Christ, Scientist as defendants for failing to provide medical treatment for Ian. The jury returned a verdict finding all the defendants liable and awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davies, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
