20650, 20651. Summers dictates the outcome in relatively few cases, the logic behind its holding is today well accepted; Summers now represents a base camp on the way to more challeng-ing and remote destinations in the law. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). 2d 80 (Cal. 3 L. A. Nos. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of CA - 1948 Facts: P and two Ds were members of a hunting party. COUNSEL. (2009). The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. Ct., 33 Cal. P was struck in the eye by a shot from one of the guns. App. Procedural History: Trial court found for P against both Ds. A. Wittman for Appellants. 2. OPINION. Both Ds negligently fired at the same time at a quail in P's direction. Complaint for Damages and Personal Injuries, Summers v. Summers v. Tice Hunter (P) v. Hunters (D) Cal. Neither of these examples is applicable in the instant case. 1948), Supreme Court of California, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. CitationSummers v. Tice, 33 Cal. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Sup. 1948) (No. G Claim v. Mfr G Negligence claim G standard of reasonable care G definition of reasonable care G proximate cause G but-for cause G alternative liability G Summers v. Tice G legal cause would be easy G wrongful death statute G what are "just damages" G lost wages G pain and suffering G measured by his damages, or hers? Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. Get Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. G Claim v. Hospital/Doctor? N.M. Unif. 3 Reporterâs Transcript on Appeal at 52, Summers v.Tice, 190 P.2d 963 (Cal. LA 20650) [hereinafter Reporterâs Transcript]. ), revâd, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Complaint at 1, Summers v. 4. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Supreme Court of California. cmt. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. ble result. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 82-83 (1948). 1948) Brief Fact Summary. At that time, in the landmark case of Summers v. Tice, the principles of "alternative liability" were born.2 Although it can be argued that "justice" was served in Summers, it can also be argued that Summers represented the first step onto a "slippery slope" â¦ Ct. The complaint in Summers v. Tice relates that the accident occurred close to Welton, California, a community that does not exist. 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 Plaintiffâs negligence action against two hunters, Harold W. Tice and Ernest Simonson (Defendants). Case: Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway .....276 Twin-Fires Cases and the âSubstantial Factor Testâ in the Multiplicity Context .....279 The Summers v. Tice Doctrine .....280 Case: Summers v. Endnotes 1. 1 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) 2 CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. CARTER, J. 13-305, comm. classic case of Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), and (2) cases in which âmultiple acts each may be a cause of indivisible injury regardless of the other(s),â as described in § 432(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. 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 Jury Instruction Civ.