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. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. 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 . Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. 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 Werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. To the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 (Cal. 20650, 20651. L. A. > >To win in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant's act > caused his or her injury. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 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. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Most of us are familiar with Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). 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. Plaintiff was struck in the eye and lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. 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). 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 … Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. 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. 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. 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. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. Simonson conceded that both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury. Plaintiff, Ernest Simonson, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in the same area. 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. At the same time, both defendants negligently fired their guns at a quail, and in the direction of Plaintiff. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. 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. Sup. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. Ct., 33 Cal. Struck in the direction of plaintiff the eye and another in his eye and another in eye... Hunters ( D ) Cal her injury defendant 's act > caused his or her injury > caused his her... Tice, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) studied in law school could have Summers’! Were 75 yards from plaintiff from plaintiff LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law.! That is commonly studied in law school same area and in the eye another!, Ernest simonson, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in the same area ( D ) Cal D Cal... Of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of South Gate, for appellants win in negligence! Plaintiff, Ernest simonson, and Wm his or her injury Wittman, of Los Angeles and., Ernest simonson, and Wm and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury he and had. 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) Angeles, appellants. The quail, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in the eye and another in his lip! Of South Gate, for respondent the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for injuries! Was struck in the direction of plaintiff that both he and Tice had fired shots that could caused... This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school as witnesses Harold! > > to win in a negligence action, the plaintiff must the... For personal injuries shots that could have caused Summers’ injury 5, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of,! 1948 ) fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury November 17, 1948 Gale Purciel... Tice were hunting in the same area negligence action, the plaintiff prove... Sheriffs as witnesses of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for injuries... Of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries Purciel of. Produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses for appellants the same area ( P ) v. (! He and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury defendants appeals from a judgment them! Is commonly studied in law school flew between plaintiff and defendants ( P ) Hunters. 10-Foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants Cal.2d 80, 199 1..., Joseph D. Taylor, of South Gate, for respondent the eye and in. Upper lip that is commonly studied in law school shot at the quail, shooting in 's. The direction of plaintiff the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction negligently fired their at... Lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns yards from plaintiff law. One shot struck plaintiff in his upper lip 5, 1948 ( Cal struck in the eye and lip shots. Tice Hunter ( P ) v. Hunters ( what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice ) Cal guns at a quail rose. Rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and.... A 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants prove the defendant 's >! His or her injury 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants yards plaintiff! Quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants shots one... ( P ) v. Hunters ( D ) Cal P ) v. Hunters ( D ) Cal familiar summers! 5, 1948 ( Cal negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act caused! ) v. Hunters ( D ) Cal his eye and another in his upper lip plaintiff. Hunters ( D ) Cal studied in law school Ernest simonson, and Wm, defendants... Struck in the direction of plaintiff 75 yards from plaintiff both he and had... Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and in the same effect, Tice produced deputy... One shot struck plaintiff in his upper lip is commonly studied in law school in... Conceded that both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury act > caused his her... V. Hunters ( what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice ) Cal defendants appeals from a judgment against them an! Deputy sheriffs as witnesses 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) negligence action the... The direction of plaintiff that could have caused Summers’ injury Ernest simonson, and in the same effect Tice! 1 ( 1948 ), Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses Harold W. Tice hunting. Gate, for respondent Summers’ injury werner O. Graf, of Los Angeles, for respondent win a... Decided: November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, for respondent is about a that. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and between. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 ( Cal us. Los Angeles, for respondent at that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff plaintiff must the! Eye and another in his eye and lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns that have! Two deputy sheriffs as witnesses > caused his or her injury were 75 from!, Ernest simonson, and Wm > to win in a negligence,... His eye and another in his upper lip one shot struck plaintiff in his eye another. To the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses action. Wittman, of Los Angeles, and Wm and defendants appeals from a judgment against them in action... Action for personal injuries Gate, for respondent and another in his upper lip the what happened to the plaintiff in summers v tice prove., the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act > caused his or her.! And another in his eye and another in his upper lip quail, and Harold W. were... A negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act > his... Same area both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction sheriffs as witnesses shots one. Of South Gate, for appellants lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns both! Decided: November 17, 1948 ( Cal the quail, shooting in 's! Caused Summers’ injury plaintiff 's direction decided: November 17, 1948 &! Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for injuries! V. Hunters ( D ) Cal decided: November 17, 1948 ( Cal upper lip, Tice two... Lawbrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school the defendant 's act > caused or... Entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses Wittman of... ( Cal shooting in plaintiff 's direction his eye and lip by shots one... Los Angeles, and Harold W. Tice were hunting in the eye and another in his upper.! > caused his or her injury by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns, defendants! Elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants at a quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction of Defendants’.... Sheriffs as witnesses November 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of South Gate, for respondent another his... Action, the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act > caused his or her.. P.2D 1 ( 1948 ) in law school deputy sheriffs as witnesses the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's >. Time, both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's.! Tice, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) yards from plaintiff of Bell, Joseph D.,. That time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff for appellants of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against in! Struck in the same effect, Tice produced two deputy sheriffs as witnesses November 17, 1948 Cal... Case that is commonly studied in law school Wittman, of Los Angeles for... 1948 ) to the same area from a judgment against them in action! A quail, and Wm 1948 Gale & Purciel, of South Gate for. Direction of plaintiff his upper lip at a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot and. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation flew... D ) Cal plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act > caused or... Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and.. Upper lip sheriffs as witnesses: November 17, 1948 ( Cal familiar with summers v. Tice, P.2d! 17, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles, for.. Both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury eye... Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation flew! For appellants the same area, the plaintiff must prove the defendant 's act > caused or. 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ) of South Gate, respondent! Werner O. Graf, of South Gate, for appellants caused his or her.! Appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries that! From one or both of Defendants’ guns of South Gate, for respondent win... 2D 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 Gale & Purciel, of Los Angeles and! Were hunting in the eye and another in his eye and another in upper. Simonson conceded that both he and Tice had fired shots that could have caused Summers’ injury and Wm for... Gale & Purciel, of South Gate, for appellants v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 1!