Summers walked in front of both men in the field. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Then click here. [5] 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. OPINION CARTER, J. Most of us are familiar with Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. [3] It is true that plaintiff suggested that they all "stay in line," presumably abreast, while hunting, and he went uphill at somewhat of a right angle to the hunting line, but he also cautioned that they use care, and defendants knew plaintiff's position. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Accordingly, in their view, neither was liable, and they could not be held jointly and severally liable (i.e., each defendant was liable for the full amount of damages). That is sufficient from which the trial court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence. plaintiff’s harm. The operation could not be completed. To install click the Add extension button. 132 [28 P.2d 946] (hearing in this Court denied), and must be deemed disapproved. No contracts or commitments. Similarly in the instant case plaintiff is not able to establish which of defendants caused his injury. 675].) Defendant Tice states in his opening brief, "we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice." 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 1948 Cal. Cancel anytime. Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. As a result, the plaintiff sustained injuries to … You can find, contribute to, and create other common 1L, 2L, and 3L cases in the Law School Cases category. While I agree that the DeCSS case is distinguishable from Summers v. Tice in that not al the potential defendants can be joined, I don't think that ultimately this distinction goes anywhere. § 1983. 254]; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Co., v. Industrial Acc. COUNSEL Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. P was struck in the eye by a shot from one of the guns. It was there said: "If the doctrine is to continue to serve a useful purpose, we should not forget that 'the particular force and justice of the rule, regarded as a presumption throwing upon the party charged the duty of producing evidence, consists in the circumstance that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to him but inaccessible to the injured person.' At trial it was established that each of two pellets had caused the injuries to plaintiff's lip and eye, respectively, and both might have been discharged from a single weapon (defendant) or each defendant may have contributed one of the injuring pellets. Read our student testimonials. The view of both defendants with respect to Summers was unobstructed, and both defendants knew his location, 75 yards from each of them. Summers v. Tice. The defendants appealed. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.