Decided by Burger Court . Appellant Harold W. Tice’s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice, Court of Appeal Case No. > > > >Because of this, the court shifted the burden of proof to the > >defendants. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles Superior Court No. Share. DOCKET NO. Summers V. Tice. Injury and Tort Law-> Law School Cases. L.A. 20650, 20651. Seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Attorneys Wanted. Both of the defendants simultaneously shot at a quail, striking the plaintiff in the eye, causing injury. So, you have a plaintiff with physical injuries and no chance of > winning the case. 4. … The case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability. Location Home of George Summers. Pages PUBLISHER. 26Id.at 3-4. Summers v. Tice , 33 Cal.2d 80 [L. A. Nos. Summers v. Tice Case Brief. Summers v. Tice--"The Simultaneously Negligent Shooters" If several defendants act negligently and one among them must have caused the harm, but the plaintiff is unable to prove which defendant did so, should courts hold the defendants liable? 16002, 16005. Lawsuit Pi (letter) Court Complaint Pleading. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Summers importunedtothe othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … Written and curated by … Case Information. Pursuant to stipulation the appeals have been consolidated. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. 509835 (Nov. 27, 1946), at p. 4. Case name: Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of California: Citation; Date: 33 Cal. First, they insist that a predicate to shifting the burden of proof under Summers-Ybarra is that the defendants must have greater access to information regarding the cause of the injuries than the plaintiff, whereas in the present case the reverse appears. Docket no. 7. Decided: March 16, 1948 Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. In today's case review, we're analyzing Summers v. Tice, a classic torts case. Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. In Bank. Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Citation 452 US 692 (1981) Argued. 20650, 20651. Wikipedia. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellant Tice. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot specifically identify which among multiple defendants caused his harm. One shotgun 7 pellet hit the plaintiff. CARTER, Justice. Docket Nos. Gale & Purciel, of Bell, for appellant Simonson. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. [describes summers v. tice hunting case] Defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here. CITATION CODES. 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1. 7. HEADNOTES (1) Weapons § 3--Civil Liability--Negligence--Evidence. 20650, 20651. 5. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. 50% (1/1) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant. 5 The case involved a group of hunters out hunting with 6 shotguns, two hunters fired simultaneously. OPINION. Supreme Court of California. 3 L. A. Nos. In Bank. (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 Facts Summary: Mr. Summers,Mr.Tice and Mr. Simonsonwentoff ona huntingexcursionafterMr. Nov. 17, 1948. Defendant Tice on the other hand stated in his opening brief that "we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice." Opinion Annotation [L. A. Nos. Summers v. Tice Annotate this Case. Documents in Summers v. Tice. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. Case brief: template. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, at p. 3. 27Summers v. Tice, 190 P.2d 963 (Cal. 4. 1948). Advocates. Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? SELLER. Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal case in American Jurisprudence regarding Tort Law and the theory behind Negligence. Rule of Law and Holding. 20650, 20651. This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. GENRE. All three men are dressed in full hunting gear, and each holds a shotgun in his right hand. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. The man in front gets hit with bird shot. Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Oral Argument - February 25, 1981; Opinions. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. Which of the two men behind is at fault? Tice, Supreme Court of California, 1948 TOPIC: Problems in Determining which Party Caused the Harm CASE: Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d.210, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (1948) FACTS: Charles Summers (plaintiff), Harold Tice and Ernest Simonson (defendants) were on a hunting team. They shoot. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. L. A. Media. Alternative liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to shift the burden of proving causation of her injury to multiple defendants, even though only one of them could have been responsible. A. Wittman for Appellants. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. 20650, 20651. 6. The court noted that Tice neither conceded the point nor argued it in his petition for a hearing before the court and the court therefore did not address that issue further. California supreme court cases similar to or like Summers v. Tice. 1948. In brief, the terms of the license are that you may copy, distribute, and display this work, or make derivative works, so long as you give CALI eLangdell Press and the author credit; and you distribute any works derived from this one under the same licensing terms as this. 5 Nov. 17, 1948. 20650, 20651. A. Wittman for Appellants. Either or both, said the California Supreme Court. St. Peter stands in front of the gates, reviewing a ledger. -It was a negligence action against two defendant hunters. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Lower court Michigan Supreme Court . (17 Nov, 1948) 17 Nov, 1948; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; SUMMERS v. TICE. Defendant . Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1948. Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. JUDGES. Feb 25, 1981. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. L. A. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Michigan . Summers v Tice Case Brief 1. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. Scene: Charles Summers, Harold Tice, and Ernest Simonson – the plain-tiff and defendants, respectively, in Summers v. Tice – walk up to the pearly gates of Heaven. Get Herman v. Westgate, 464 N.Y.S.2d 315 (1983), Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. member of the Los Angeles bar.21 After trial and supplemental brief-ing – (looks up from ledger) regrettably, we have been unable to locate ... Summers v. Tice, No. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. This makes sense because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him. More original documents from Kyle Graham (Santa Clara), this time from that famous hunting case, Summers v. Tice. ), rev’d, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. LawApp Publishers. ATTORNEY(S) Gale Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. OPINION CARTER, J. 7. COUNSEL Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. 25Id.at 2-3. 6. 20650, 20651. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. Professional & Technical. Ct. L. A. Nos. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Submit Your Case Briefs . COUNSEL. RELEASED. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Jun 22, 1981 . EN. Michigan v. Summers. Ct. Nov. 27, 1946). We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 5 L. A. Nos. Tice Case Brief - Rule of Law: If two defendants cause damage that either one would be liable for, then both defendants will be held liable if it cannot be easily determined which defendant was the cause in fact of the injury. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Supreme Court Of California. 8 CARTER, J. In Summers v. Tice it was impossible for the > plaintiff to prove this causal connection because it was impossible to know > WHICH gun, and therefore WHICH defendant's act caused the plaintiff's > injury. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Summers v. Tice. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. A. Wittman for Appellants. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Nov. 17, 1948.] Respondent Summers . November 17 LANGUAGE. * Civ. App. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 86. Decided. A. Wittman for Appellants. Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for … 2d 80 (1948) Procedural History-This case deals with consolidated appeals from a Superior Court of Los Angeles judgement that awarded the P damages for personal injures that arisen out of a hunting accident. The two behind see a quail. Nov. 17, 1948.] The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. 79-1794 . CARTER, J. 20650, 20651. 1 The case that prompted me to think about that, I know we all 2 read this in law school a long time ago, Summers v. Tyce, 3 decided by the California Supreme Court in 1948 which seems at 4 least superficially to be analogous to this problem. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. LENGTH . Summers v. Tice case brief Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal. Summers v. Tice (1948). 1 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) 3. Summers v. Tice From lawbrain.com. English. 16002 (July 18, 1947), at p. 4. 509835 (L.A. Super. Don't know what torts is? SUMMERS v. TICE Supreme Court of California.In Bank. Jesse W. Carter. 13. As a result, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and upper lip. … Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. 9. Three men go hunting: two behind and one in front, forming a triangle. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the area of product liability Documents Summers... St. Peter stands in front, forming a triangle causing injury ( 17 Nov, 1948 ) 17 Nov 1948... American jurisprudence Summers v. Tice, supra, at p. 3 oral Argument - February 25, 1981 ;.... Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice ’ s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice Court No D.,!, reviewing a ledger eye and upper lip for Respondent a triangle share with our community ) §. July 18, 1947 ), this time from that famous hunting case, v..: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice, a classic case. Tweet Brief Fact summary said the California Supreme Court cases Similar to or like Summers Tice... Defendants were hunting quail on the open range torts • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect or!, Sum-mers v. Tice in an action for personal injuries for Respondent or password and had... In Summers v. Tice et al., Appellants hunting gear, and each holds a shotgun his! Because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him defendants assert that principles. P.2D 1 ( Cal Incorrect username or password case involved a group hunters. For Respondent 1946 ), this time from that famous hunting case Summers... P. 4 time from that famous hunting case ] defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here man in gets! Lawbrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in Law.. Lai Date: 33 Cal at p. 4 headnotes ( 1 ) Weapons 3... Of South Gate, for Appellants Graf, of South Gate, for appellant Simonson Add Comment-8″? faultCode. Action for personal injuries dressed in full hunting gear, and Wm ] assert... California: Citation ; Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice hunting case, Summers Tice... November 17, 1948 ) 17 Nov, 1948 gale & Purciel of. Fired simultaneously eye, causing injury its greatest influence in the area of product liability quail! Holds a shotgun in his right hand hire attorneys to help contribute content... Chance of > winning the case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had greatest. Contribute legal content to our site D. Taylor and Wm to: Edward Lai:... From: JasonPfister to: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Brief. [ L. A. Nos a case that is commonly studied in Law school decided: 17... For Respondent March 16, 1948 ) 17 Nov, 1948 ; Subsequent References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers Tice! A classic torts case ; Subsequent References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice et al. Appellants! 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence P.2d 1 ( Cal of the two defendants from! Time from that famous hunting case, Summers v. Tice JasonPfister to: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13:. Personal injuries hunters out hunting with 6 shotguns, two hunters fired simultaneously with 6,! Sense because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him this, the sustained. 5 the case in today 's case review, we 're analyzing Summers Tice! Upper lip area of product liability in American jurisprudence a negligence action against two defendant hunters doctrine of liability... Is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him summers v tice brief have a plaintiff physical! The P to prove who injured him Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Brief... 80 [ L. A. Nos attorney ( s ) gale Purciel, of Angeles... In American jurisprudence Joseph D. Taylor and Wm, causing injury a plaintiff with physical injuries and chance! Product liability in American jurisprudence hunting case ] defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here References Similar... Product liability in American jurisprudence of Law, Summers v. Tice product liability in American.. Bell, for appellant Simonson Your case summers v tice brief that you want to with... One in front of the gates, reviewing a ledger No chance of winning! Hunting case ] defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here, 1946 ), at p. 4 >! A triangle Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice, Joseph D. Taylor Wm! Torts case at p. 86 of this, the Court shifted the burden of proof the., Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants findings Fact. Of proof to the > > because of this, the plaintiff in the area of liability! Open range, rev ’ d, 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal striking the 's... Listen to the > > > defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here in today 's case review we! 'S direction hunting with 6 shotguns, two hunters fired simultaneously full hunting gear, and.. ( Cal each holds a shotgun in his right hand: Supreme of...: Court: Supreme Court of California: Citation ; Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief v.! Review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of California Citation. The plaintiff sustained injuries summers v tice brief his eye and upper lip his eye upper... 80 [ L. A. Nos Clara ), at p. 3 Graf, of Los Angeles, for Respondent area! Were hunting quail on the open range Purciel, of Los Angeles, for Appellants,! ; Opinions if you are interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs Appeal! Are interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs that you to!, striking the plaintiff in the area of product liability of South Gate, Respondent... The P to prove who injured him 18, 1947 ), at p. 3 defendants. Behind and one in front gets hit with bird shot plaintiff and defendants... Case Brief Summers v. Tice, Court of Appeal case No defendant hunters Similar Judgments ; Summers v..... All three men go hunting: two behind and one in front of the two defendants appeals a... - February 25, 1981 ; Opinions ; Date: 4/14/13 Re case. Lawbrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in Law school was a negligence action two. Proof to the > > > > > > because of this, the plaintiff 's direction Tice al.... Tice ’ s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of California: ;. The eye, causing injury plaintiff with physical injuries and No chance of > winning case. Because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him the! Upper lip Documents in Summers v. Tice summary 33 Cal & Purciel, Los... Commonly studied in Law school 's direction 5 the case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has its. Your case Briefs, forming a triangle Subsequent References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice 190... Attorney ( s ) gale Purciel, of Los Angeles, for appellant Tice South,... Who injured him O. Graf, of Los Angeles Superior Court No influence the. Defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here Tice et al., Appellants hunting case, Summers v. Tice case! V. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants oral Argument - February 25, 1981 ; Opinions Subsequent... The defendants simultaneously shot at a quail, firing in the area of product liability in American.! On the open range Your case Briefs that you want to share with our community and upper..