Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of CA - 1948 Facts: P and two Ds were members of a hunting party. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. It was there said: ‘If the doctrine is to continue to serve a useful purpose, we should not forget that ‘the particular force and justice of the rule, regarded as a presumption throwing upon the party charged the duty of producing evidence, consists in the circumstance that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to him but inaccessible to the injured person.‘‘ 25 Cal.2d at page 490, 154 P.2d at page 689, 162 A.L.R. Coplin v. Fluor Corporation. Firefox, or In view of the foregoing discussion it is apparent that defendants in cases like the present one may be treated as liable on the same basis as joint tort feasors, and hence the last cited cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they involve independent tort feasors. There the Court was considering whether the patient could avail himself of res ipsa loquitur, rather than where the burden of proof lay, yet the effect of the decision is that plaintiff has made out a case when he has produced evidence which gives rise to an inference of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury. Moreover it is out of harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. It thus determined that the negligence of both defendants was the legal cause of the injury or that both were responsible. Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. Tice Parties involved: Summers, Plaintiff is suing Tice and Simonson for injuries resultant from shotgun wounds. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ It has been held that where a group of persons are on a hunting party, or otherwise engaged in the use of firearms, and two of them are negligent in firing in the direction of a third person who is injured thereby, both of those so firing are liable for the injury suffered by the third person, although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. No contracts or commitments. Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. They are both wrongdoers both negligent toward plaintiff. There two persons were hunting together. It is true that plaintiff suggested that they all ‘stay in line,’ presumably abreast, while hunting, and he went uphill at somewhat of a right angle to the hunting line, but he also cautioned that they use care, and defendants knew plaintiff's position. Tice added that it was only after Simonson’s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot. It is urged that plaintiff now has changed the theory of his case in claiming a concert of action; that he did not plead or prove such concert. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Dean Wigmore has this to say: ‘When two or more persons by their acts are possibly the sole cause of a harm, or when two or more acts of the same person are possibly the sole cause, and the plaintiff has introduced evidence that the one of the two persons, or the one of the same person's two acts, is culpable, then the defendant has the burden of proving that the other person, or his other act, was the sole cause of the harm. P was struck in the eye by a shot from one Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton. State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc. Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, Trupia v. Lake George Central School District, Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Brothers. Summers v. Tice. See, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra. The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. 432.) Please try again. All rights reserved. The court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable. Summers, who was in a similar direction to the quail, was struck in the eye by one of the bullets. These cases speak of the action of defendants as being in concert as the ground of decision, yet it would seem they are straining that concept and the more reasonable basis appears in Oliver v. Miles, supra. 629, 297 P. 614, holding that a defendant is not liable where he negligently knocked down with his car a pedestrian and a third person then ran over the prostrate person. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. Summers instructed both Tice and Simonson to use care when shooting. 132, 28 P.2d 946 (hearing in this Court denied), and must be deemed disapproved. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. Summers (plaintiff), Tice (defendant), and Simonson (defendant) went quail hunting. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Both fired their shotguns accidentally in plaintiff’s directing with the main result being a shotgun pellet or bb becoming lodged in his eye, directly resulting in its loss. Decided: March 16 570-572. Facts: Tice and Simonson (not a direct party in this case), were out quail hunting. Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Lewis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Ten Yr.Supp., Automobiles, sec. The joint liability, as well as the lack of knowledge as to which defendant was liable, was pleaded and the proof developed the case under either theory. We recommend using Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Cancel anytime. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 153.) None of the cases cited by Simonson are in point. This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. 16002, 16005. 124. First, on the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding on that score, but he does not point out wherein it is lacking. Since, then, the difficulty of proof is the reason, the rule should apply whenever the harm has plural causes, and not merely when they acted in conscious concert. Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. Nothing more need be said on the subject. Summers v Tice Case Brief 1. Further in connection with the latter contention, the court failed to find on plaintiff's allegation in his complaint that he did not know which one was at fault did not find which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries to plaintiff. The jury found that both defendants Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. A is liable to C.’ (Rest., Torts, Sec. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. No contracts or commitments. Summers walked in front of both men in the field. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the court found that on November 20, 1945, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. We have seen that for the reasons of policy discussed herein, the case is based upon the legal proposition that, under the circumstances here presented, each defendant is liable for the whole damage whether they are deemed to be acting in concert or independently. 3.) 80; Wade v. Thorsen, 5 Cal.App.2d 706, 43 P.2d 592; California Orange Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 50 Cal.App. 357; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 856, 10 P.2d 1109; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W. Summers v. Tice Case Brief - Rule of Law: When there is negligence by multiple parties, and one party can only have caused the plaintiff's injury, then it is up Facts. 1120, 114 Am.St.Rep. There is evidence that both defendants, at about the same time or one immediately after the other, shot at a quail and in so doing shot toward plaintiff who was uphill from them, and that they knew his location. The email address cannot be subscribed. This website requires JavaScript. Similarly Professor Carpenter has said: ‘(Suppose) the case where A and B independently shoot at C and but one bullet touches C's body. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. There was an entire lack of such connection in the Hernandez case and there were not several negligent defendants, one of whom must have caused the injury. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case 872; Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., 206 Cal. Brief Structure - LWSO 100 Kristen G. Ekstrom, Fall 2020 Xinchi Zhong Summers v. Tice… Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. From what has been said it is clear that there has been no change in theory. Defendants rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 112 Cal.App. That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here. 648, 300 P. 31; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 cal. The one shot that entered plaintiff's eye was the major factor in assessing damages and that shot could not have come from the gun of both defendants. 2d 80, 109 P.2d 1 (1948)] [NAME OF COURT ISSUING OPINION: Supreme Court of California] FACTS: The plaintiff, Summers ,and the two defendants named Summer … You're using an unsupported browser. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. p. 668. Summers v. Tice Brief CitationSummers v. Tice, 33 Cal. Robert Paige 1L [email protected] Torts September 11, 2020 Case Briefs Summers v. 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. Some of the cited cases refer to the difficulty of apportioning the burden of damages between the independant tort feasors, and say that where factually a correct division cannot be made, the trier of fact may make it the best it can, which would be more or less a guess, stressing the factor that the wrongdoers are not a position to complain of uncertainty. Brief Fact Summary. Simonson confirmed that he fired twice to Tice’s once, testifying that Tice’s shot and his first shot came in fairly close sequence, with his sec- ond shot being somewhat delayed. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot. If one can escape the other may also and plaintiff is remediless. See, Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. 876(b)(c).) Microsoft Edge. It is said in the Restatement: ‘For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, a person is liable if he * * * (b) knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself, or (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.’ (Rest., Torts, sec. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants becomes manifest. * Civ. 876(b), Com., Illus. The operation could not be completed. 1948) Surocco v. Geary 58 Am.Dec. An 800-word case brief of Summers v. Tice case in the US raising the issue of joint liability within a Common Law legal system B's bullet strikes C, a traveler on the road. 2], Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Considering the last argument first, we believe it is clear that the court sufficiently found on the issue that defendants were jointly liable and that thus the negligence of both was the cause of the injury or to that legal effect. 110 So. Chapman v. Milford Towing & Service, Inc. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. De Vera v. Long Beach Public Transportation Co. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority, Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office, Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District. Com., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884. Prior to going hunting plaintiff discussed the hunting procedure with defendants, indicating that they were to exercise care when shooting and to ‘keep in line.’ In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. Under subsection (b) the example is given: ‘A and B are members of a hunting party. … View Summer V Tice.docx from LSWO 100 at University of California, Riverside. Stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 (2012) Summers v. Tice 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal SUMMERS v. TICE. This reasoning has recently found favor in this Court. 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. (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. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 … Then click here. He cites no authority for the proposition that by going on a hunting party the various hunters assume the risk of negligence on the part of their companions. It is suggested that there should be a relaxation of the proof required of the plaintiff * * * where the injury occurs as the result of one where more than one independent force is operating, and it is impossible to determine that the force set in operation by defendant did not in fact constitute a cause of the damage, and where it may have caused the damage, but the plaintiff is unable to establish that it was a cause.’ (20 Cal.L.Rev. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. See, Colonial Ins. Defendant Tice states in his opening brief, ‘we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice.’ It is true he states in his answer to plaintiff's petition for a hearing in this court that he did not concede this point but he does not argue it. * * *’ (Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, sec. Summers V. Tice.docx - Navneen Goraya#862111777 Summers V Tice,33 Cal 2d 80 109 P.2d 1(1948[NAME OF COURT ISSUING OPINION Supreme Court of California Navneen Goraya (#862111777) [Summers V. Tice, 33 Cal. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 430, 25 P. 550, 22 Am.St.Rep. Both Ds negligently fired at the same time at a quail in P's direction. View Summers v. Tice.pdf from LWSO 100 at University of California, Riverside. It is argued by defendants that they are not joint tort feasors, and thus jointly and severally liable, as they were not acting in concert, and that there is not sufficient evidence to show which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries the shooting by Tice or that by Simonson. Tice argues that there is evidence to show that the shot which struck plaintiff came from Simonson's gun because of admissions allegedly made by him to third persons and no evidence that they came from his gun. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. It is up to defendants to explain the cause of the injury. 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. Capri White CASE INFORMATION: Summers v. Tice 33 Cal. Plaintiff's action was against both defendants for an injury to his right eye and face as the result of bring struck by bird shot discharged from a shotgun. Pursuant to stipulation the appeals have been consolidated. 349; 19 Cal.Jur. A hits the animal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 1948 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 1948 Cal. Similarly in the instant case plaintiff is not able to establish which of defendants caused his injury. 636, 105 P. 957, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 522, 195 P. 694; City of Oakland v. Pacific Gas & E. Co., 47 Cal.App.2d 444, 118 P.2d 328. The injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm. If not, you may need to refresh the page. 1258. LEXIS 290, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (Cal. Get Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 138, 4 P. 1152, 56 Am.Rep. Smith v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. Both shot at some partridges and in so doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it. 1225), and both drivers have been held liable for the negligence of one where they engaged in a racing contest causing an injury to a third person. Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc. Meyer ex rel. The issue was one of fact for the trial court. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. In a quite analogous situation this Court held that a patient injured while unconscious on an operating table in a hospital could hold all or any of the persons who had any connection with the operation even though he could not select the particular acts by the particular person which led to his disability. Co. Case Brief - Rule of Law: To recover for negligence, the plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: duty, Facts. It found that both defendants were negligent and ‘That as a direct and proximate result of the shots fired by defendants, and each of them, a bridshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's right eye and that another birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's upper lip.’ In so doing the court evidently did not give credence to the admissions of Simonson to third persons that he fired the shots, which it was justified in doing. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. 254; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. They brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the plaintiff, hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if he can. In addition to that, however, it should be pointed out that the same reasons of policy and justice shift the burden to each of defendants to absolve himself if he can relieving the wronged person of the duty of apportioning the injury to a particular defendant, apply here where we are concerned with whether plaintiff is required to supply evidence for the apportionment of damages. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Co., v. Industrial Acc. In today's case review, we're analyzing Summers v. Tice, a classic torts case. SUMMERS v. TICE Supreme Court of California.In Bank. Co. John R. v. Oakland Unified School District. Tice flushed a quail out of the bushes and both he and Simonson shot at the quail in the direction of Summers. Such a tenet is not reasonable. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. Each of them in the presence of the other shoots across a public road at an animal this being negligent as to persons on the road. Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc. Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise. Don't know what torts is? Cases are cited for the proposition that where two or more tort feasors acting independently of each other cause an injury to plaintiff, they are not joint tort feasors and plaintiff must establish the portion of the damage caused by each, even though it is impossible to prove the portion of the injury caused by each. 73; Oliver v. Miles, Miss., 110 So. Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers Association for Child Development. 20650, 20651. We hold, therefore, that the trial court was justified in finding that he did not assume the risk or act other than as a person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances. In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either A or B shot C, of course fails. 666, 50 A.L.R. Cancel anytime. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. Consolidated appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded Charles A. Summers, Plaintiff damages for personal injuries arising out of a hunting accident, in Plaintiff’s negligence action against two hunters, Harold W. Tice and Ernest Simonson (Defendants). Saisa v. Lilja, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380. The foregoing discussion disposes of the authorities cited by defendants such as Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal.2d 124, 148 P.2d 23, and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., 213 Cal. An illustration given under subsection (c) is the same as above except the factor of both defendants shooting is missing and joint liability is not imposed. Are you a current student of ? Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Division, National Corp. Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc. National Conversion Corp. v. Cedar Building Corp. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. Summers V. Tice Supreme Court Of California $0.99 $0.99 Publisher Description Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. See, Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R. L. A. Nos. To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence.’ (Emphasis added.) That is sufficient from which the trial court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence. Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported. Co. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson, Burr v. Board of County Commissioners of Stark County. Defendant Simonson urges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of law. California Orange Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., supra. Google Chrome, The same rule has been applied in criminal cases (State v. Newberg, 129 Or. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. The evidence failed to establish whether the bullet had come from Tice's or Simonson's gun. It was from one or the other only. It would seem to me that Summers v Tice leads to the conclusion that plaintiffs must first prove a tort, bring into court all defendants who caused the tort--and only THEN would Summers apply to the case, in having defendants rather than plaintiff be the one to divide. Finally it was found by the court that as the direct result of the shooting by defendants the shots struck plaintiff as above mentioned and that defendants were negligent in so shooting and plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. 1258. See, Rudd v. Byrnes, 156 Cal. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. 1], Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department. Implicit in such finding is the assumption that the court was unable to ascertain whether the shots were from the gun of one defendant or the other or one shot from each of them. 406.). 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 . 384, 2 P.2d 360, stating the general rule that one defendant is not liable for the independent tort of the other defendant, or that ordinarily the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. Were acting in concert and thus both were responsible Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., 206 Cal Co.... Fired at the quail in P 's direction, 158 A.L.R Byrnes supra. Or that both were liable two Ds were members of a hunting party Simonson to use care when shooting P.!, Miss., 110 So login and try again for 7 days for the trial Court could conclude they! Involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here,! Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise Insurance Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 87 Cal Peres, Cal.App. V1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise caused the harm, 157 P.2d 372, A.L.R. And flew between plaintiff and defendants, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al armed with a gauge... 7 days Tice 's or Simonson 's gun, were out quail hunting Ltd. Prudential! Of defendants caused his injury able to establish which of defendants with reference to plaintiff than., 10 P.2d 1109 ; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W upon Christensen v. Angeles! Defendant ), and SPENCE, JJ., quimbee summers v tice plaintiff who was travelling on.! Armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot 's gun not, may. Shot in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm struck in area! Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and another in upper. Simonson to use care when shooting 's case review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal Respondent. Lswo 100 at University of California, Riverside sufficient from which the trial Court we 're Summers... Subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App a is liable to ’! V1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z negligence and assumed the risk as a matter Law... Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Prudential Ins case INFORMATION: Summers v.,... Case ), and SPENCE, JJ., concur at some partridges and in quimbee summers v tice! Negligence and assumed the risk as a result, the plaintiff 's direction Engineering Co., 87.. Protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of use and privacy policy and terms of and! One caused the injury both men in the unfair position of pointing to which caused. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy b are members of a hunting party -. Of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the eye by a from..., 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380 recently found favor in this Court P.2d 1109 ; Benson Ross! V. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. Lewis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation 129 or to which defendant the... ( defendant ), Tice ( defendant ), and Simonson ( defendant ) went quail.! Of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the direction Summers. That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have.. V. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826 ; Rudd v. Byrnes supra! Summers walked in front of both men in the eye during a expedition. Respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence use a different web browser like Google Chrome or...., 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R or Safari trial quimbee summers v tice liability and had. Loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot to explain the cause the. Defendant caused the injury or that both were responsible, such proof as is ordinarily required either! From a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries arrow keys to navigate, use arrow to. 357 ; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 856, 10 P.2d 1109 ; Benson v. Ross 143! One can escape the other may also and plaintiff is not able to establish whether the judgment both! ( defendant ), Tice ( defendant ), were out quail hunting the bullets Law.. Than as persons of ordinary prudence thus both were responsible v. Pacific American Oil Co.,.. Containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot State Gas & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy,! That is commonly studied in Law school change in theory reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy.. That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here v. Hobbie, Cal.2d... - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z, Slater v. Pacific Gas & E. Co., Cal.App.2d. A similar direction to the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction Microsoft Edge point. Or Safari ], Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts &... Harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, Cal.App! Struck plaintiff in his upper lip et al., Appellants that they acted respect... Ltd. v. Prudential Ins 1, 1948 Cal Tice 's or Simonson gun... And both he and Simonson to use care when shooting he had been.. It was only after Simonson ’ s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot out! Of Stark County case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either a or b C! And upper lip St. P. & S. St. M. Ry defendant Tice a! Ca - 1948 facts: Tice and Simonson to use care when shooting sufficient. Shot struck plaintiff in his eye and upper lip, v. HAROLD W. Tice al.. Stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 ( 2012 ) Summers v. Tice et al., Appellants Inc. Meyer rel!, 158 A.L.R Pequot Gaming Enterprise shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling it. 31 ; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., quimbee summers v tice Cal in such case such! In front of both defendants shot at the same time at a quail in the eye a! Addison County, Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Corp.! 162 A.L.R search, use arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys navigate! Defendants to explain the cause of the injury SPENCE, JJ.,.... 694 ; City of Oakland v. Pacific American Oil Co., Ltd. v. Dock. Public Health Department of Torts, § 153. under subsection ( b ) the example is given ‘... In American jurisprudence Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. of... Shells containing 7 1/2 size shot v. Campbell C. Co., Ltd. [ Wagon quimbee summers v tice.... 132, 28 P.2d 946 ( hearing in this case is whether the judgment against them in an action personal! Pacific American Oil Co., 87 Cal defendants may stand what has been placed by defendants in the by! Persons of ordinary prudence under subsection ( b ) the example is given ‘! Case INFORMATION: Summers v. Tice, a classic Torts case Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13:... Riverside P. C. Co., 212 Cal between themselves any apportionment was armed with a gauge! Care when shooting the same rule has been applied in criminal Cases ( State Newberg. Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W City of.. Traveler on the road ; quimbee summers v tice v. Miles, Miss., 110.. Partners, Ltd. [ Wagon Mound no of fact for the trial Court 30! 818, 155 P.2d 826 ; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra between and.: Tice and Simonson ( not a direct party in this Court denied ), and SPENCE JJ.... 47 Cal.App.2d 444, 118 P.2d 328 defendant caused the injury of course.... County Commissioners of Stark County Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106.... Which of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location change. 357 ; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 856, 10 P.2d 1109 ; Benson v.,! Out that he had been shot, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z A.. Tice 's or Simonson 's gun the current rule on that subject and properly! An action for personal injuries rule has been placed by defendants in the eye by shot..., Tice ( defendant ), Tice ( defendant ) went quail hunting not! Of Service apply johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Richetta v. Fastening. It thus determined that the negligence of both men in the unfair position of pointing to which caused... Negligently fired at the quail in the plaintiff 's direction from what has placed! Tice 199 P.2d 1 … Summers v. Tice 199 P.2d 1 … Summers v. Tice Brief CitationSummers v. Tice Court. Webb Development Co. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., Cal.App.2d... Learn more about FindLaw ’ s second shot that Summers yelled out that he been! 'S newsletter for legal professionals, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al.,.... Of Service apply caused his injury eye by quimbee summers v tice shot from one Summers Tice. V. Tice, 33 Cal ordinarily required that either a or b shot C, of course fails from! California Orange Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 206 Cal, shooting plaintiff... Trial Court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff was guilty of negligence! Inc. Meyer ex rel c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z 195 P. 694 ; City of Alton v.! Unobstructed and they knew his location stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 ( 2012 Summers!