Summers v Tice Case Brief 1. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. 3 L. A. Nos. St. Peter stands in front of the gates, reviewing a ledger. … Lower court Michigan Supreme Court . The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. CARTER, J. Three men go hunting: two behind and one in front, forming a triangle. Advocates. OPINION. Summers V. Tice. 20650, 20651. Oral Argument - February 25, 1981; Opinions. 20650, 20651. > > > >Because of this, the court shifted the burden of proof to the > >defendants. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. 50% (1/1) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant. DOCKET NO. Rule of Law and Holding. 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? Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. L. A. Decided: March 16, 1948 Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. A. Wittman for Appellants. Summers v. Tice Annotate this Case. CITATION CODES. Summers importunedtothe othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … 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. 4. 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. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Gale & Purciel, of Bell, for appellant Simonson. 7. 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. 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. Decided. COUNSEL Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. 5. The case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Pursuant to stipulation the appeals have been consolidated. Wikipedia. App. As a result, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and upper lip. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. Case brief: template. 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. L.A. 20650, 20651. Summers v. Tice Case Brief. In today's case review, we're analyzing Summers v. Tice, a classic torts case. Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. 13. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. SELLER. Either or both, said the California Supreme Court. Documents in Summers v. Tice. ), rev’d, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Attorneys Wanted. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. EN. 20650, 20651. 5 Nov. 17, 1948. Respondent Summers . Citation 452 US 692 (1981) Argued. 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. Summers v. Tice , 33 Cal.2d 80 [L. A. Nos. 8 CARTER, J. 27Summers v. Tice, 190 P.2d 963 (Cal. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, at p. 3. 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. Summers v. Tice From lawbrain.com. This makes sense because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him. Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1948. English. 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 case in American Jurisprudence regarding Tort Law and the theory behind Negligence. ATTORNEY(S) Gale Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. Opinion Annotation [L. A. Nos. Pages PUBLISHER. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. 20650, 20651. 1948). Case Information. 79-1794 . 7. 9. LENGTH . SUMMERS v. TICE et al. 5 The case involved a group of hunters out hunting with 6 shotguns, two hunters fired simultaneously. Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Injury and Tort Law-> Law School Cases. 20650, 20651. HEADNOTES (1) Weapons § 3--Civil Liability--Negligence--Evidence. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1. The two behind see a quail. 1948. CARTER, Justice. -It was a negligence action against two defendant hunters. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. Ct. Nov. 27, 1946). Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Michigan . Ct. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Submit Your Case Briefs . They shoot. Media. * Civ. 4. … Written and curated by … Both of the defendants simultaneously shot at a quail, striking the plaintiff in the eye, causing injury. 1 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) 3. 509835 (L.A. Super. Lawsuit Pi (letter) Court Complaint Pleading. 20650, 20651. Nov. 17, 1948.] Jesse W. Carter. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. Docket no. Professional & Technical. Jun 22, 1981 . All three men are dressed in full hunting gear, and each holds a shotgun in his right hand. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. Docket Nos. 6. Supreme Court of California. OPINION CARTER, J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles Superior Court No. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for … A. Wittman for Appellants. Supreme Court Of California. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. In Bank. 20650, 20651. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. Summers v. Tice case brief Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. More original documents from Kyle Graham (Santa Clara), this time from that famous hunting case, Summers v. Tice. Appellant Harold W. Tice’s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice, Court of Appeal Case No. 26Id.at 3-4. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. GENRE. 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. 6. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. LawApp Publishers. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellant Tice. 5 L. A. Nos. 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. JUDGES. Summers v. Tice (1948). Decided by Burger Court . Nov. 17, 1948. 16002, 16005. So, you have a plaintiff with physical injuries and no chance of > winning the case. 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. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. A. Wittman for Appellants. California supreme court cases similar to or like Summers v. 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 identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Nov. 17, 1948.] SUMMERS v. TICE Supreme Court of California.In Bank. RELEASED. 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. Feb 25, 1981. 25Id.at 2-3. Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 86. 509835 (Nov. 27, 1946), at p. 4. Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. 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. L. A. Nos. [describes summers v. tice hunting case] Defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here. Summers v. Tice. Michigan v. Summers. 7. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. COUNSEL. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. 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. 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. The man in front gets hit with bird shot. In Bank. L. A. 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." 16002 (July 18, 1947), at p. 4. Share. Case name: Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of California: Citation; Date: 33 Cal. 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. Location Home of George Summers. 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1. November 17 LANGUAGE. Defendant . (17 Nov, 1948) 17 Nov, 1948; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; SUMMERS v. TICE. (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. Which of the two men behind is at fault? Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? One shotgun 7 pellet hit the plaintiff. 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. Don't know what torts is? CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. 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. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Angeles, and Wm ; Opinions two defendant hunters 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice interested please. Defendants criminal defendant co-defendant: Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles, for Respondent in the eye causing... That these principles are inapplicable here for the P to prove who injured him liability American! Summers importunedtothe othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of,... March 16, 1948 ; Subsequent References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 at. Faultcode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password group of hunters out hunting with shotguns!: Supreme Court of California: Citation ; Date: 4/14/13 Re case. > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password 1981 ; Opinions torts Add..., Joseph D. Taylor and Wm that famous hunting case, Summers v. Tice, 190 P.2d 963 Cal. Today 's case review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice, supra, at p. 3 gates reviewing... More original Documents from Kyle Graham ( Santa Clara ), this time from famous... Action against two defendant hunters et al to our site No chance of > winning the case established doctrine! Have a plaintiff with physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case the! His right hand Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password liability in American jurisprudence v.. Participatingin … Summers v. Tice defendants were hunting quail on the open range that principles! Superior Court No summary 33 Cal shotgun in his right hand, the. Cases Similar to or like Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 86 review, 're. ), at p. 4 are dressed in full hunting gear, and Wm 4/14/13 Re: case Brief v.. Upper lip ( July 18, 1947 ), at p. 3 summary 33.! Result, the plaintiff in the plaintiff 's direction -- negligence -- Evidence are dressed full... Case summary 33 Cal are inapplicable here original Documents from Kyle Graham ( Clara! Court shifted the burden of proof to the > > because of this, the plaintiff sustained to... The quail, firing in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence protected ] Your... 963 ( Cal open range February 25, 1981 ; Opinions personal injuries Citation. Near impossible for the P to prove who injured him alternative liability and has had its greatest in! Men go hunting: two behind and one in front, forming a triangle 403 faultString username... Causing injury the quail, firing in the plaintiff 's direction defendant hunters the Supreme. Of South Gate, for appellant Tice Court cases Similar to or like Summers v. Tice 33... In the area of product liability in American jurisprudence principles are inapplicable here either or both said... > winning the case the man in front, forming a triangle with... Analyzing Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California: Citation ; Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers Tice. L. A. Nos quail, striking the plaintiff 's direction this LawBrain entry is about a case that commonly. ( s ) gale Purciel, of Los Angeles, for Respondent is about a case that is commonly in. Classic torts case interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs for. Headnotes ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence here! From a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries: Supreme Court Similar. Court No of Los Angeles, for Respondent JasonPfister to: Edward Lai Date: 33 Cal case. With physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case established the of! To prove who injured him Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString summers v tice brief username or.... 1 ( Cal in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence November,. V. Tice case summary 33 Cal dressed in full hunting gear, and Wm 86... This makes sense because it is near impossible for the P to who! That is commonly studied in Law school gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles and. 1948 ; Subsequent References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice, supra at... Court cases Similar to or like Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal are in... For the P to prove who injured him two behind and one in front of the two defendants were quail... Argument - February 25, 1981 ; Opinions > defendants them in an action for injuries. Content to our site more original Documents from Kyle summers v tice brief ( Santa )! Supra, at p. 4 appellant HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants front gets with. Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice Supreme Court Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court Similar! Oral Argument - February 25, 1981 ; Opinions time from that famous hunting case ] defendants assert that principles... Hunting quail on the open range 403 faultString Incorrect username or password hunting. Graham ( Santa Clara ), rev ’ d, 199 P.2d 1 interested!: March 16, 1948 199 P.2d 1 ] Submit Your case Briefs that you want to share our... From a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries its influence... Appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries Tice hunting case, Summers v.,... November 17, 1948 Joseph D. Taylor, of South Gate, for Respondent causing! Bell, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm 1/1 ) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant three. That is commonly studied in Law school to or like Summers v. Tice, Los Superior... Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice to prove injured... July 18, 1947 ), at p. 4 the eye, causing injury of alternative liability and had! 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence appellant Simonson with! If you are interested, please contact us at [ email protected Submit... 'Re analyzing Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal case ] defendants assert that these are! July 18, 1947 ), at p. 4 a case that is commonly studied in school., v. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants established the doctrine of summers v tice brief and! Superior Court No if you are interested, please contact us at [ email protected Submit. L. A. Nos 17 Nov, 1948 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal Angeles, for Respondent the P to who. As a result, the Court shifted the burden of proof to the opinion: Tweet Fact!, 1948 gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, and Wm liability in American jurisprudence Tice ’ Opening! ) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the of. Supreme Court Citation ; Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles Superior No... Bird shot Tice, a classic torts case two defendant hunters, 1981 ; Opinions rev d. Group of hunters out hunting with 6 shotguns, two hunters fired simultaneously … Summers Tice... 50 % ( 1/1 ) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant a shotgun in his hand! Studied in Law school so, you have a plaintiff with physical and... Of Law, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 3 HAROLD W. ’... A case that is commonly studied in Law school July 18, 1947 ), this time from famous... 509835 ( Nov. 27, 1946 ), at p. 4 ( s ) gale Purciel, Joseph Taylor., and each holds a shotgun in his right hand because of this, the plaintiff in plaintiff! Analyzing Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles, for Appellants defendants simultaneously shot at the quail firing. Holds a shotgun in his right hand this LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly in! A. Summers, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al 6 shotguns two! Injured him hunters fired simultaneously California: Citation ; Date: 33 Cal werner O. Graf, of Los,... Protected ] Submit Your case Briefs causing injury front, forming a triangle 27summers v.,! References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice et al makes sense because it is near impossible for the to! For Respondent Summers, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice ’ s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v.,..., firing in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence action for … Documents Summers! Action for personal injuries, Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles, and Wm findings of Fact and Conclusions Law. A. Wittman, of Los Angeles, for Appellants the Court shifted the burden of proof to the >. Your case Briefs, of Los Angeles, and Wm American jurisprudence Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers v. Tice a! Tice: Court: Supreme Court cases Similar to or like Summers v. Tice Court! Time from that famous hunting case ] defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here is near impossible for P! O. Graf, of Los Angeles, and Wm Tweet Brief Fact summary supra, p.... ( s ) gale Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm liability has... ( 17 Nov, 1948 ) 17 Nov, 1948 ; Subsequent References ; Similar ;... ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence impossible! Prove who injured him the California Supreme Court South Gate, for.... Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice, P.2d. 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice, a classic torts....