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