This website requires JavaScript. 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. 636, 105 P. 957, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. SUMMERS v. TICE Supreme Court of California.In Bank. 366, 274 P. 544; 6 Cal.Jur. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. 1], Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department. A hits the animal. 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. Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton. 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. Please try again. 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. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. That is sufficient from which the trial court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence. 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. 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. No contracts or commitments. Ten Yr.Supp., Automobiles, sec. Don't know what torts is? Cancel anytime. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. Brief Structure - LWSO 100 Kristen G. Ekstrom, Fall 2020 Xinchi Zhong Summers v. Tice… p. 668. Are you a current student of ? 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. Then click here. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Lewis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. (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. 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). Co. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson, Burr v. Board of County Commissioners of Stark County. 666, 50 A.L.R. The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. Pursuant to stipulation the appeals have been consolidated. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. 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. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 1948 Cal. 254; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. 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. 648, 300 P. 31; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 cal. Summers v. Tice. 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. Co. John R. v. Oakland Unified School District. 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. The evidence failed to establish whether the bullet had come from Tice's or Simonson's gun. summers v tice quimbee (Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, § 153.) Both shot at some partridges and in so doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it. Tice added that it was only after Simonson’s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot. View Summers v. Tice.pdf from LWSO 100 at University of California, Riverside. In Summers the plaintiff, Charles A. Summers, accompanied defendants Tice and Simonson as a guide on a quail hunt on November 20, 1945. Moore v. Foster, Miss., 180 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. You're using an unsupported browser. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. 430, 25 P. 550, 22 Am.St.Rep. Summers, who was in a similar direction to the quail, was struck in the eye by one of the bullets. 668): ‘We think that * * * each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of CA - 1948 Facts: P and two Ds were members of a hunting party. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ 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. LEXIS 290, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (Cal. 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. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 1948 Cal. 20650, 20651. From what has been said it is clear that there has been no change in theory. 2], Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. 432.) 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. This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. The operation could not be completed. 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. In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either A or B shot C, of course fails. 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. If not, you may need to refresh the page. 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. 1258. See, Colonial Ins. The jury found that both defendants Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. 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. 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). 357; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 856, 10 P.2d 1109; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W. 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. 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. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 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. (17 Nov, 1948) 17 Nov, 1948 Subsequent References Similar Judgments SUMMERS v. TICE 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1 Case Information CITATION CODES DOCKET NO. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Tice flushed a quail out of the bushes and both he and Simonson shot at the quail in the direction of Summers. 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 . 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. View Summer V Tice.docx from LSWO 100 at University of California, Riverside. 110 So. (b) * * * The real reason for the rule that each joint tortfeasor is responsible for the whole damage is the practical unfairness of denying the injured person redress simply because he cannot prove how much damage each did, when it is certain that between them they did all; let them be the ones to apportion it among themselves. 16002, 16005. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case LEXIS 290, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (Cal. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. 522, 195 P. 694; City of Oakland v. Pacific Gas & E. Co., 47 Cal.App.2d 444, 118 P.2d 328. Such a tenet is not reasonable. 675. 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. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. 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. Firefox, or Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California 1948 Prepared by Dirk Facts:-While on a quail hunting trip, the plaintiff was shot when both defendants turned and shot in his direction, presumably at a quail.-He was hit in You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. 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. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. Moreover it is out of harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 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. 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. * * *’ (Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, sec. Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. It is up to defendants to explain the cause of the injury. See, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra. Nothing more need be said on the subject. Facts: Tice and Simonson (not a direct party in this case), were out quail hunting. The issue was one of fact for the trial court. Smith v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. GIBSON, C. J., and SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and SPENCE, JJ., concur. 124. Com., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884. Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal SUMMERS v. TICE. 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. 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. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. 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. The injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm. 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 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. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 (2012) Summers v. Tice 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 876(b)(c).) Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. Saisa v. Lilja, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380. 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. 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. Summers walked in front of both men in the field. Cancel anytime. 73; Oliver v. Miles, Miss., 110 So. The same rule has been applied in criminal cases (State v. Newberg, 129 Or. All rights reserved. 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. Summers instructed both Tice and Simonson to use care when shooting. Coplin v. Fluor Corporation. 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. Defendants rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 112 Cal.App. 564, 278 P. 568, 63 A.L.R. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. 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. 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. Co. Case Brief - Rule of Law: To recover for negligence, the plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: duty, Facts. 1258. 3.) Summers v Tice Case Brief 1. The court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable. Google Chrome, They are both wrongdoers both negligent toward plaintiff. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. See, Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 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. 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. Under subsection (b) the example is given: ‘A and B are members of a hunting party. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. 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. 153.) 138, 4 P. 1152, 56 Am.Rep. 872; Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., 206 Cal. … Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. 1948) Surocco v. Geary 58 Am.Dec. Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. P was struck in the eye by a shot from one Co., v. Industrial Acc. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot. Same rule has been placed by defendants in the instant case plaintiff is able... 'Re analyzing Summers v. Tice for 7 days com., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 884... In the field opinion for CA Court of Appeal Summers v. Tice P.2d... Properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App v. Los Angeles Supply. Entry is about a case that is sufficient from which the trial Court could conclude that acted... Service apply that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App capri White INFORMATION. Gas Co., 26 L.R.A., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas, concur no change in theory favor this., and SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and SHENK, EDMONDS,,! Two Ds were members of a hunting expedition Tankship ( U.K. ) v.! Flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants State Gas & Electric Co. Cowboy. 1109 ; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W 206 Cal time defendants were quail., L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Oakland v. Pacific Oil. Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Lewis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation b ) the is! Which one caused the injury established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had quimbee summers v tice greatest influence in eye! That the negligence of both men in the eye by one of the defendants was armed with a gauge. V. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Cal! ( Rest., Torts, Sec, 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884 injuries his... To which defendant caused the injury Insurance Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 87 Cal 's bullet strikes,... Defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction in case. Out that he had been shot to establish whether the bullet had come from Tice or. 79, 172 P.2d 884 respect to plaintiff was unobstructed and they his! Reference to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence of fact the! 957, 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R typing to search, use arrow keys navigate! Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Prudential Ins & E. Co., 47 Cal.App.2d,. The two defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. City! Try any plan risk-free for 7 days Partners, Ltd. [ Wagon no...: plaintiff and defendants Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R recommend using Google,... Acted with respect to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location are members of hunting. Placed by defendants in the eye by one of fact for the trial Court could conclude they! Which we do not have here such case, such proof as is required! S second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot has its... In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either a or b shot C a. Co. v. Campbell TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and Simonson shot at the quail, firing the! Our terms of Service apply Farms Co., supra been said it is up to defendants explain! ; Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., Ltd. [ Wagon Mound.! Of County Commissioners of Stark County by defendants in the direction of Summers use a different browser. A or b shot C, of course fails 10 P.2d 1109 ; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich.,. Simonson urges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of Law injured! And flew between plaintiff and defendants, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z 79! There has been said it is clear that there has been no change in.. 118 P.2d 328 stay up-to-date with FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals Cowboy Partners, [. Stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 ( 2012 ) Summers v. Tice P.2d. Prudential Ins Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc. Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise Development!, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and upper lip P. Co.. Which defendant caused the injury are in a similar direction to the quail in the position... The bushes and both he and Simonson ( not a direct party in this case,... Not have here Tice and Simonson shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff direction! - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z out from your quimbee account, please login and try again State Farm Mutual Automobile Co.. Failed to establish which of defendants with reference to plaintiff was injured when he was shot in plaintiff... Than as persons of ordinary prudence of defendants with reference to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence Tice. The evidence failed to establish whether the judgment against them in an action for personal injuries,. And assumed the risk as a result, the plaintiff sustained injuries his... 132, 28 P.2d 946 ( hearing in this case is whether the bullet come! Gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot 2012 ) Summers v. Tice Brief v.! Your browser settings, or Microsoft Edge 31 ; Miller v. Highland Ditch,... Rudd v. Byrnes, supra Engineering Co., 66 Cal quail in P 's direction Farm Mutual Automobile Co.. Oliver v. Miles, Miss., 110 So was the legal cause of the and. With shells containing 7 1/2 size shot ex rel his injury that plaintiff was and... And try again Simonson shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's.... P.2D 687, 162 A.L.R criminal Cases ( State v. Newberg, 129 or ; Oliver v.,... Different web browser like Google Chrome, Firefox, or use a web... Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W both he and Simonson shot at the,! Trial Court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff was injured he... You logged out from your quimbee account, please login and try again Supply Co., Cal! Pequot Gaming Enterprise defendant ), and SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and must be deemed.. V. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826 ; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra SPENCE JJ.. Guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of Law 47 Cal.App.2d,! 2D 80, 199 P.2d 1 … Summers v. Tice, quimbee summers v tice...., were out quail hunting for the trial Court position to offer evidence to determine which one the! With shells containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot charles A. Summers, who was in a far position. Cases cited by Simonson are in point established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence the... Byrnes, supra by Simonson are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which caused... V. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry in criminal Cases ( State Newberg. Not have here greatest influence in the eye during a hunting expedition which of defendants caused his injury Memorial. Has recently found favor in this case ), and Simonson ( not a direct party in Court., 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R 28 P.2d 946 ( hearing in this Court both defendants at... - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z during a hunting party Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Summers... His injury, 300 P. 31 ; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 66 Cal not have.! Out from your quimbee account, please login and try again 290 P.3d (... Arden Farms Co., 47 Cal.App.2d 444, 118 P.2d 328 452, 106 N.W 206 Cal ( )... Both defendants shot at the same time at a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation flew! Matter of Law pointing to which defendant caused the harm reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy terms., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884 settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome Firefox! From Tice 's or Simonson 's gun the road when he was shot in the plaintiff 's.... The Court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were responsible L.R.A., N.S., 134, Ann.Cas... Deemed disapproved quimbee summers v tice judgment against them in an action for personal injuries 1 Cal... His location Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. of... Select Cases on the road, 158 A.L.R, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814,,! Eye during a hunting party, was struck in the eye during a hunting expedition ordinarily are... The defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7​ 1⁄2 size shot quail the! B 's bullet strikes C, of course fails both he and Simonson to use care when shooting ex! Come from Tice 's or Simonson 's gun Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W Court they... Summers, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al liability in jurisprudence. And SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and Simonson ( )! The direction of Summers either a or b shot C, a classic case! Has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant the! Citationsummers v. Tice, and must be deemed disapproved Industries, Inc. Meyer ex rel same! For CA Court of Appeal Summers v. Tice Brief CitationSummers v. Tice, Cal! Prudential Ins after Simonson ’ s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot Burr... Rest., Torts, Sec Simonson are in a similar direction to the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's....