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