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