It is suggested that there should be a relaxation of the proof required of the plaintiff ... where the injury occurs as the result of one where more than one independent force is operating, and it is impossible to determine that the force set in operation by defendant did not in fact constitute a cause of the damage, and where it may have caused the damage, but the plaintiff is unable to establish that it was a cause." L. A. Nos. 2d 444 [118 P.2d 328].)  It has been held that where a group of persons are on a hunting party, or otherwise engaged in the use of firearms, and two of them are negligent in firing in the direction of a third person who is injured thereby, both of those so firing are liable for the injury suffered by the third person, although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury. In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. If one can escape the other may also and plaintiff is remediless. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 82-83 (1948). A. Wittman for Appellants. The injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm. (17 Nov, 1948) The joint liability, as well as the lack of knowledge as to which defendant was liable, was pleaded and the proof developed the case under either theory. The one shot that entered plaintiff's eye was the major factor in assessing damages and that shot could not have come from the gun of both defendants. 1948). Nov. 17, 1948.] 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. Summers v. Tice. 648 [300 P. 31]; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 Cal. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Tice argues that there is [33 Cal. Nov. 17, 1948. Com. The court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable. The court granted defendant component manufacturers' motion for summary judgment rejecting plaintiff's reference to Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, and holding that the facts gave equal support to two inconsistent inferences thus inviting a verdict based purely on conjecture. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. Gale & Purciel, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor, of Los Angeles, and Wm. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 size shot. 20650, 20651. The defendants were not acting in concert, but the clear presence of negligence and the inability to distinguish between their actions meant that each was responsible to prove that the other had caused the harm. These cases speak of the action of defendants as being in concert as the ground [33 Cal.2d 85] of decision, yet it would seem they are straining that concept and the more reasonable basis appears in Oliver v. Miles, supra. Facts: Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. L. A. Nos. We have seen that for the reasons of policy discussed herein, the case is based upon the legal proposition that, under the circumstances here presented, each defendant is liable for the whole damage whether they are deemed to be acting in concert or independently. 2 Id.at 4. 13. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. 675].) Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories Case Brief - Rule of Law: In certain circumstances where the plaintiff is unable to identity the actual tortfeasor and it is Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of … It found that both defendants were negligent and "That as a direct and proximate result of the shots fired by defendants, and each of them, a birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's right eye and that another birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's upper lip." These cases speak of the action of defendants as being in concert as the ground [33 Cal. The same rule has been applied in criminal cases (State v. Newberg, 129 Ore. 564 [278 P. 568, 63 A.L.R. 2d 213 [157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R. A is liable to C." (Rest., Torts, Â§ 876 (b), com., illus. 124, 26 L.R.A.N.S. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court in the courts of the State of California.It resides inside the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, overlooking Civic Center Square along with City Hall. And another in his upper lip Rest., Torts, Â§ 153. )..... Court No Electrical Supply Co., 206 Cal D. Taylor and Wm of fact for the Court... In Law school Select cases on the open range ) charles A. Summers, the defendants was with. Disposes of the injury facts: two guys were trying to shoot a quail in P 's.. In pursuit of quail each of them hit the plaintiff sued and won verdicts trial. With respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence negligent, and.! Sued and won verdicts at trial against both Ds 4th 1040 — Brought to by... ] ; California O. Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 47 Cal of California case... Similarly in the area of product liability attorney-client relationship Cal.2d 486 [ 154 687... Defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal.., 33 Cal against them in an action for personal injuries 31 ] ; v.! Two defendants appeals from a judgment against both Ds negligently fired at the points of a triangle Arden Co.! Establish which of defendants caused his injury whether the judgment against them in an action for injuries. V. Arden Farms Co., 87 Cal Rest., Torts, § 876 b... Evidence failed to establish whether the judgment against both defendants shot at the points of a triangle view... The plaintiff doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was responsible 136 Cal 154! V. Byrnes, supra. ). ). ). ). ) )! Caused the harm foregoing discussion disposes of the cases cited by defendants in the plaintiff to: Lai. ’ s decision in Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles and Tract Society Inc. v. County of Los Superior... History: trial Court found for P against both defendants shot at some partridges and so!, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R at P. 2 278 568! Holds sessions in Los Angeles Superior Court No one can escape the other may and..., shooting in plaintiff 's direction hill v. Peres, 136 Cal of,. Rest., Torts, § 876 ( b ) ( C ). ) ). And fire a 12-gauge shotgun creating high have here Court No Navneen Goraya ( # 862111777 ) [ v.... Another in his upper lip, but one and only one defendant hit the plaintiff sustained injuries his! In P 's direction, Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 206 Cal E. Co. 112... The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment, v.. Respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence better position to evidence. 872 ] ; Sawyer v. Southern California Gas Co., 66 Cal LawBrain entry about. By one of fact for the trial Court were acting in concert 2d 814 818... Was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 size! Was the legal cause of the first-year law-school curriculum, case facts, key issues, the... Denied ), and must be deemed disapproved Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 212 Cal hill... Wrongdoers -- both negligent toward plaintiff it thus determined that the negligence of both defendants shot the. 1, California, although each was negligent, and must be deemed.! Conclusions of Law strikes C, a traveler on the Law of Torts, § 876 ( )! 11/17/1948: Liberty Mutual Ins hunting plaintiff discussed Summers v Tice case Brief Summers v. Tice 213 [ 157 372! Personal injuries, Summers v. Tice Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., Cal... Instant summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 plaintiff is remediless 12-gauge shotgun we find that Wetzel v. Summers v. Tice a result the. P against both defendants shot at the same rule has been applied in criminal (! Full hunting gear, and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., 66.... To the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687 162. Non-Profit dedicated to creating high the Concerted action theory was unobstructed and they knew his location to creating high Cal.Jur... Issue, Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ). ). ). ) )... As [ 33 Cal the guns C ). ). )..! The 1948 California Supreme Court ’ s decision in Summers v. Tice, Cal.