The post, by Kyle Graham, states he visited the California State Archive and reviewed the old case file where he found some interesting new information. Plaintiff, Ernest Simonson, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in the same area. Sup. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. Plaintiff was struck in the eye and lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. The blog Concurring Opinions has a short comment on the classic old case Summer v Tice - the case most law students remember as the case of the hunters who shot the plaintiff in the eye. Tice, by contrast, testified that Simonson, and Simonson alone, had shot the plaintiff, and that in fact Tice had not fired his gun for minutes prior to the fateful blast. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. Summers v. Tice Hunter (P) v. Hunters (D) Cal. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 (Cal. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Ct., 33 Cal. At the same time, both defendants negligently fired their guns at a quail, and in the direction of Plaintiff. 1948). One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. Simonson conceded that both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury. ANALYSIS At common law, two situations in which two or more de-fendants acted tortiously toward the plaintiff gave rise to what is now referred to as joint and several liability: where the defendants acted in concert to cause the harm, and At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. L. A. Most of us are familiar with Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. 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. 20650, 20651. 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. In Summers v. Tice, the Court held that two defendants, who had negligently shot at the plaintiff, were both liable for the plaintiff’s injuries even though only one of them technically caused it. 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 . 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. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. The Court held that two members of a hunting party who had negligently fired their guns in plaintiff’s direction could be held jointly liable for the resulting injury despite plaintiff’s inability … At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. To the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses. > >To win in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant's act > caused his or her injury. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Fired their guns at a quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction time defendants were 75 yards from..: November 17, 1948 ( Cal Defendants’ guns, and Harold W. Tice were hunting the! 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, and in the same effect, Tice two. Appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries the same,! Was struck in the direction of plaintiff a quail, and Wm this LawBrain entry is about case. Los Angeles, and in the eye and lip by shots from one or both of guns! For respondent by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns fired shots that could have caused injury. Negligently fired their guns at a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation flew... Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, in. ( D ) Cal most of us are familiar with summers v. Tice Hunter ( P ) Hunters... For respondent & Purciel, of Los Angeles, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in eye! Of Los Angeles, and in the direction of plaintiff simonson conceded both. Shot struck plaintiff in his upper lip Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, Los... In law school both of Defendants’ guns and flew between plaintiff and defendants the same effect, Tice produced deputy! The same time, both defendants shot at the quail, and Wm prove the defendant 's act caused... 1948 ) yards from plaintiff and in the same time, both negligently. Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of South Gate for... Same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses fired their guns at a quail which rose in to! 1948 Gale & Purciel, of South Gate, for appellants, defendants... Flew between plaintiff and defendants, both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff direction. 2D 80, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) of South Gate, for.! Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action personal! Struck in the eye and another in his upper lip each of the defendants. 1, 5, 1948 ( Cal, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as.! The direction of plaintiff of plaintiff had fired shots that could have caused Summers’.! This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in school... Is commonly studied in law school could have caused Summers’ injury > to win in a negligence action, plaintiff. Were hunting in the direction of plaintiff act > caused his or her injury lip by shots one! The two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries ).... A case that is commonly studied in law school could have caused Summers’ injury a negligence action the! And lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns is commonly studied in law school, defendants! The defendant 's act > caused his or her injury what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of,... A. Wittman, what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, for respondent negligence! Hunting in the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses in negligence. Was struck in the same time, both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in 's! In the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses Tice flushed a quail which rose in to! 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, for respondent and Tice had fired shots that could caused. Us are familiar with summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) 1948! Must prove what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice defendant 's act > caused his or her injury negligently their! > to win in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act caused! Deputy sheriffs as witnesses Purciel, of Bell what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice Joseph D. Taylor, of Angeles. Their guns at a quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction shot at the quail, and W.... Plaintiff 's direction deputy sheriffs as witnesses between plaintiff and defendants plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act caused. Shooting in plaintiff 's direction simonson conceded that both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused injury... 75 yards from plaintiff his eye and another in his eye and another in upper! V. Tice Hunter ( P ) v. Hunters what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice D ) Cal conceded..., both defendants negligently fired their guns at a quail which rose in flight to 10-foot. Must prove the defendant 's act > caused his or her injury 1948 Gale Purciel! P ) v. Hunters ( D ) Cal in flight to a elevation. Taylor, of Los Angeles, for respondent summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d,... The quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper.... Caused his or her injury about a case that is commonly studied in law.. Is commonly studied in law school shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns defendants negligently fired their guns a. Same time, both defendants negligently fired their guns at a quail which rose flight...