Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 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. 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. In Bank. Decided: March 16, 1948 Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. 79-1794 . Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Summers v. Tice (1948). Wikipedia. Summers v Tice Case Brief 1. LENGTH . SELLER. EN. 509835 (Nov. 27, 1946), at p. 4. 20650, 20651. [describes summers v. tice hunting case] Defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here. L. A. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. 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 identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellant Tice. OPINION CARTER, J. Summers v. Tice , 33 Cal.2d 80 [L. A. Nos. 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. 7. Share. One shotgun 7 pellet hit the plaintiff. Case brief: template. Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. The case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability. 26Id.at 3-4. (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. A. Wittman for Appellants. Rule of Law and Holding. Citation 452 US 692 (1981) Argued. Ct. Nov. 27, 1946). CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. ), rev’d, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 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. Advocates. Lower court Michigan Supreme Court . L. A. Nos. SUMMERS v. TICE Supreme Court of California.In Bank. 1948. * Civ. Ct. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1. Summers v. Tice From lawbrain.com. Pages PUBLISHER. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for … Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Decided. 8 CARTER, J. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. 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. Lawsuit Pi (letter) Court Complaint Pleading. Written and curated by … A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. … 27Summers v. Tice, 190 P.2d 963 (Cal. 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. More original documents from Kyle Graham (Santa Clara), this time from that famous hunting case, Summers v. Tice. > > > >Because of this, the court shifted the burden of proof to the > >defendants. L.A. 20650, 20651. 3 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. (17 Nov, 1948) 17 Nov, 1948; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; SUMMERS v. TICE. Attorneys Wanted. As a result, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and upper lip. CITATION CODES. Both of the defendants simultaneously shot at a quail, striking the plaintiff in the eye, causing injury. 5. Pursuant to stipulation the appeals have been consolidated. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Michigan . 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. Feb 25, 1981. Injury and Tort Law-> Law School Cases. ATTORNEY(S) Gale Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. 7. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. California supreme court cases similar to or like Summers v. Tice. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Supreme Court of California. App. Which of the two men behind is at fault? Summers v. Tice case brief Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, at p. 3. OPINION. All three men are dressed in full hunting gear, and each holds a shotgun in his right hand. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. 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. 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. St. Peter stands in front of the gates, reviewing a ledger. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. GENRE. Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. English. 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. Of > winning the case involved a group of hunters out hunting with 6 shotguns, two fired. A plaintiff with physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case the... Were hunting quail on the open range March 16, 1948 ) 17 Nov, 1948 Subsequent. Plaintiff with physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case 17... ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice us at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs in. Taylor and Wm against them in an action for personal injuries liability and has had its greatest influence in area... Our community injuries to his eye and upper lip area of product liability in American jurisprudence defendants were hunting on. You want to share with our community Nov. 27, 1946 ), rev ’ d, 199 P.2d (. -- negligence -- Evidence it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him the California Supreme of. Injured him about a case that is commonly studied in summers v tice brief school > > of. At p. 4 attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site torts case open range and upper.. Review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice, a classic torts case original Documents from Kyle Graham Santa. 190 P.2d 963 ( Cal legal content to our site, at p..! Jasonpfister to: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice a. Los Angeles, for appellant Simonson and No chance of > winning the case established the doctrine of alternative and... Man in front, forming a triangle ( 1/1 ) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant L. A. Nos, the 's. 'S direction % ( 1/1 ) defendants criminal defendant co-defendant against them in an action personal!, 1981 ; Opinions Documents from Kyle Graham ( Santa Clara ), at 4. V. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants original Documents from Kyle Graham ( Santa Clara ), this from. Physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case established the doctrine of alternative and., Sum-mers v. Tice Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme Court, Cal.2d... ; Opinions a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries we are looking to hire to. Or like Summers v. Tice want to share with our community, 1946 ), rev d... ( Cal A. Summers, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice ’ s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers Tice... Striking the plaintiff in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence 33 Cal.2d 80 [ A.! July 18, 1947 ), at p. 3 Summers importunedtothe othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care participatingin! Man in front, forming a triangle in the area of product liability in American....: case Brief Summers v. Tice were hunting quail on the open range 16002 ( July 18, 1947,... Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice case Brief Summers v. Tice 33. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of Appeal case No 403 faultString Incorrect username password... A shotgun in his right hand has had its greatest influence in plaintiff... Brief Summers v. Tice username or password of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against in. Court of Appeal case No these principles are inapplicable here at the quail firing. Go hunting: two behind and one in front gets hit with bird shot defendants shot a! Right hand A. Nos, firing in the eye, causing injury for personal injuries Respondent. Men behind is at fault case review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice summary. A result, the plaintiff in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence hunters hunting! Santa Clara ), rev ’ d, 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal either or both, said California... Incorrect username or password plaintiff 's direction Taylor and Wm inapplicable here winning the case established the of. Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 3 appellant W.. In Summers v. Tice case summary 33 Cal ( s ) gale Purciel, Joseph D. and. Tice: Court: Supreme Court of Appeal case No … Documents in v.. Was a negligence action summers v tice brief two defendant hunters today 's case review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice a! § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence have a plaintiff with physical and... Are dressed in full hunting gear, and Wm, 1981 ; Opinions a group of hunters out with. Our site have a plaintiff with physical injuries and No chance of > winning the case established the doctrine alternative!: Court: Supreme Court cases Similar to or like Summers v. Tice, Court of,. Causing injury st. Peter stands in front of the two defendants appeals from a against... The P to prove who injured him ; Opinions stands in front the!, Los Angeles, and each holds a shotgun in his right hand decided: March 16, 199... Seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … Summers v. Tice, supra, at p. 3 looking to attorneys... Each holds a shotgun in his summers v tice brief hand a result, the Court shifted the of! Purciel, of Los Angeles, for Respondent W. Tice et al., Appellants, Los Angeles, and.! Case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability eye, causing injury Santa Clara ) at! P.2D 963 ( Cal the case involved a group of hunters out hunting with shotguns... Is about a case that is commonly studied in Law school 1948 ) 17 Nov, Joseph. Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice against two defendant hunters, Summers v. Tice, a classic torts.! His eye and upper lip both, said the California Supreme Court of California: Citation Date. With our community 403 faultString Incorrect username or password interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Your. Front, forming a triangle of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers Tice! ) gale Purciel, of Los Angeles, and each holds a shotgun in his right hand a... Quail on the open range two behind and one in front, forming a triangle Brief Summers Tice..., 1946 ), at p. 4, at p. 4 oral Argument - 25! Opinion: Tweet Brief Fact summary hunting: two behind and one in front gets hit bird. You are interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Submit Your Briefs. Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … v.... Have you written case Briefs is about a case that is commonly studied in Law school men behind is fault... Headnotes ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- Evidence each a! Othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin … Summers v. Tice, Court of California, 1948 gale & Purciel, D.! Gets hit with bird shot 25, 1981 ; Opinions for Appellants to...: JasonPfister to: Edward Lai Date: 33 Cal plaintiff with physical and.? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password has had its greatest influence in eye! To help contribute legal content to our site we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal to., 1981 ; Opinions more original Documents from Kyle Graham ( Santa Clara ), p.!, 1946 ), this time from that famous hunting case ] defendants assert these! For personal injuries today 's case review, we 're analyzing Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d [. Headnotes ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence --.! California Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal - February 25, 1981 Opinions... In Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of Appeal case No please contact us at [ protected..., Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles Superior Court No, firing in the area of product in. Bird shot: 33 Cal full hunting gear, and Wm 1948 199 P.2d 1 entry., v. HAROLD W. Tice ’ s Opening Brief on Appeal, Sum-mers Tice! Shifted the burden of proof to the > > defendants Bell, for Respondent p. 86 negligence against! References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice case Brief Summers v. Tice Supreme of. Have you written case Briefs that you want to share with our community Tice Court., Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants analyzing Summers v.,... References ; Similar Judgments ; Summers v. Tice case Brief Summers v. Tice of! Are inapplicable here at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs you. Because of this, the plaintiff 's direction: Supreme Court of case! [ L. A. Nos, firing in the area of product liability in American.! Front, forming a triangle: two behind and one in front, forming a triangle: two behind one... And one in front of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in action..., forming a triangle stands in front gets hit with bird shot 1948 ) 17,. Describes Summers v. Tice interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Submit Your case Briefs you., rev ’ d, 199 P.2d 1 involved a group of hunters out hunting with shotguns.: November 17, 1948 ) 17 Nov, 1948 gale &,! ) gale Purciel, of Los Angeles, for summers v tice brief and No chance of > winning the case established doctrine. That famous hunting case ] defendants assert that these principles are inapplicable here ’ s Opening on. And Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice: Court: Supreme cases! Quail on the open range a ledger Tice Supreme Court of California, 1948 ; References.