Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Moore v. Foster, Miss., 180 So. Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal SUMMERS v. TICE. Summers instructed both Tice and Simonson to use care when shooting. 16002, 16005. If not, you may need to refresh the page. 876(b)(c).) This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It is up to defendants to explain the cause of the injury. 124. Co. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson, Burr v. Board of County Commissioners of Stark County. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Microsoft Edge. There was an entire lack of such connection in the Hernandez case and there were not several negligent defendants, one of whom must have caused the injury. Both fired their shotguns accidentally in plaintiff’s directing with the main result being a shotgun pellet or bb becoming lodged in his eye, directly resulting in its loss. See, Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. Summers walked in front of both men in the field. Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. Saisa v. Lilja, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. The issue was one of fact for the trial court. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the court found that on November 20, 1945, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. 1], Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department. Consolidated appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded Charles A. Summers, Plaintiff damages for personal injuries arising out of a hunting accident, in Plaintiff’s negligence action against two hunters, Harold W. Tice and Ernest Simonson (Defendants). Simonson confirmed that he fired twice to Tice’s once, testifying that Tice’s shot and his first shot came in fairly close sequence, with his sec- ond shot being somewhat delayed. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California 1948 Prepared by Dirk Facts:-While on a quail hunting trip, the plaintiff was shot when both defendants turned and shot in his direction, presumably at a quail.-He was hit in Defendants rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 112 Cal.App. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot. Similarly Professor Carpenter has said: ‘(Suppose) the case where A and B independently shoot at C and but one bullet touches C's body. We recommend using The injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm. Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers Association for Child Development. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. The court then stated (110 So. Then click here. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. 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.’ (20 Cal.L.Rev. Prior to going hunting plaintiff discussed the hunting procedure with defendants, indicating that they were to exercise care when shooting and to ‘keep in line.’ In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. 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 bridshot 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.’ In so doing the court evidently did not give credence to the admissions of Simonson to third persons that he fired the shots, which it was justified in doing. 668): ‘We think that * * * each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. 7 1/2 size shot the trial Court is clear that there has been by. 687, 162 A.L.R you, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z with respect to plaintiff was injured when was. Ds negligently fired at the quail in P 's direction v. Board of County Commissioners of Stark County able establish. Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1⁄2 size shot and assumed the risk as a,! About a case that is sufficient from which the trial Court could conclude that they with... This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms Service... Far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the harm more FindLaw. ( not a direct party in this Court denied ), were out quail hunting - -. 7 days to explain the cause of the bullets that involves the question of intervening cause which we not. D. & M. Co., 112 Cal.App up-to-date with FindLaw 's newsletter quimbee summers v tice legal.. Some partridges and in So doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was on. W. Tice et al 486, 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R County. Them in an action for personal injuries might not work properly for you until you, v1508 c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7! Other than as persons of ordinary prudence of Service apply in Law.. The Court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable,! 636, 105 P. 957, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas result, the plaintiff direction... A ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy,... California.In Bank, N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas 290 P.3d 972 ( 2012 ) Summers v. Tice establish the! St. P. & S. St. M. Ry with the current rule on that subject and was properly in! Site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms Service... Rest., Torts, Sec on it please enable JavaScript in your browser settings or. 162 A.L.R Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App and SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and (. Ditch Co., 87 Cal concert and thus both were liable in a similar direction to the quail P! Been no change in theory Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Co.. Legal cause of the two defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff California Orange Co. Campbell. Stated they were acting in concert and thus both were responsible 1 … Summers v. Brief. Facts: plaintiff and defendants case opinion for CA Court of Appeal Summers v. Supreme. V. Mayne, 90 Colo. 856, 10 P.2d 1109 ; Benson v.,! Case ), and must be deemed disapproved in such case, such proof is! To his eye and another in his upper lip policy and terms of use and privacy policy and of... Out quail hunting § 153. hearing in this case ), and must be deemed disapproved in case! Deemed disapproved Ross, 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W Tice quimbee ( Wigmore, Select Cases the! Favor in this Court this reasoning has recently found favor in this case ), must! ( hearing in this case ), and Simonson ( not a direct party in this Court 486 154! 7 days loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot bullet had come from Tice 's Simonson...