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