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