1. 1
From: JasonPfister
To: Edward Lai
Date: 4/14/13
Re: Case Brief
Summers v. Tice et al. (1948)
33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91
Facts Summary:
Mr. Summers,Mr.Tice and Mr. Simonsonwentoff ona huntingexcursionafterMr. Summers
importunedtothe othertwomembersthe seriousnessbehindreasonable care while participatingin
thisendeavor.Duringtheirhunting,Summersscaledahill,endingat a locationwhere,baseduponhis
positionandthatof the othertwo members,formulatedatriangle. BothTice andSimonsonwielded12
gauge shotgunsequippedwithshellscontaining7.5size shots. Tice andSimonsoncouldsee Summers
up the hill,knowingfull well of hisprecisewhereabouts.Afteraquail rose inthe airten feet,flying
betweenSummersandTice as well asSimonson,the lattertwopositionedinhorizontalalignment,Tice
and SimonsonshotinSummers’direction.Despite being75yards fromSummers,Tice andSimonson
injuredSummersinthe eye andhisupperlipasa resultof simultaneously dispatchingthe bullets.
Procedural Status:
SummersfiledsuitagainstbothTice andSimonsoninthe LosAngelesCountySuperiorCourt,
accusingboth of negligentlycausinghisinjuriestothe eye andupperlip. Afterabenchtrial,the plaintiff
was awardeddamages,necessitatingappealsfrom the defendants.The Supreme Courtof California
grantedcertiorari to bothlitigants,consolidatingtheirappellate briefs. Theyaffirmedthe LosAngeles
CountySuperiorCourt’sdecisiononNovember17th
,1948 and deniedarehearingonDecember16th
,
1948.
Issue:
If two or more persons whoactedin concertinjuredanother,were theybothnegligentand
therefore equallyliabletothe victim,even shouldawrongedpartylack proof to establish whichactual
offendercaused the harm?
Rule/BriefAnswer:
Yes. The court determined here thatanimpossibility existedforappellee Summers toestablish
preciselywhosenegligence ledtoinjurieswhen twopeople acted inconsortium rightbeforehe
sustainedthatharm. From thismatter,an inference wasdrawnaboutthe trial court’sinability to
determine if the shotsfiredemanatedfrom eitherTice orSimonson orboth.It wasfoundthat onlyone
bulletstruckSummers’eye onthe dayinquestion.Since Summers’injurieswarrantedjudicialredress, it

2. 2
was infeasibleforthe trial courtto dismissSummers’grievance overevidence he couldneverproduce,
therebypromptingthemtoholdTice andSimonsonuniformlyaccountable.
Analysis:
In assessingthe plaintiff Summers’requestforcompensatorydamages,the trial courtweighed
several factors:
 If the plaintiffwassituatedinaclearlocationsothat any persons/people couldreasonably
see him.
 Had the injuryresultedfromthe twodefendantsactingasjointtortfeasorsor behaved
independentlyof one another incarryingouttraditional huntingexercises
 The problematicnotionof boththe gunsbeingprecise modelsof eachotherand were fired
at an exactperiod,yet onlyone bulletinjuredSummers’eye.Therefore,determiningif one
or both defendantswouldbe liable playedarole indecisionmaking
 If plaintiff Summerssatisfiedthe fourcriteriabulletsforprovingnegligence (1.Duty2.
Breach of Duty 3. Proximate Cause 4.Damages)
For the Supreme Courtof Californiatoanalyze if all the aforementionedguidelineshadbeen
resolved,theyresortedtoexaminingcase law indicativetowardsthiscomplaint.First,appellant
Simonsonallegedthatthe trial courtruledagainsthimbaseduponlimitedevidence butabsenta
cogentargumenton where these shortcomingsexisted.The SupremeCourtdeterminedthatthe
evidence accuratelydepicted bothSimonsonandTice as jointagents onthe same objective inshooting
a flyingquail,asopposedto twohunterswhopursuedcontrastinggoals. Thattheybothknew of
Summers’locationaugmentsone of the previousestablishedfactorsconsideredbythe trial court.A
similardecisionwithrespecttowardsthisreasoningwasreferencedviathe case of Rudd v. Byrnes,156
Dal.636, 105 P. 957, 26 L.R.A.,N.S.,134, 20 Ann.Cas.124. WhenappellantSimonsonallegedthat
appelleeSummerscontributedtohisown injuriesthroughactsof assumedrisk,the courtlocatedzero
statute or relevantcase thatgeneratedasuitable defense.Furthermore,Summers’ repudiatedthis
assumption throughaninsistence thatall participantsneutralize potential negligencebyenacting
reasonable care incarryingout theirhunting.The Supreme Courtof California,through Anthony v.
Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826 and the Rudd v. Byrnes decisions,revokedSimonson’s
“assumingthe risk”defense andhonoredthe trial court’slegal reasoninginthatregard. Asa legal rule,
huntingpartiescomposedof multipleindividualswhereintwo associates fire inanother’sdirection,
leadingtoinjury, bothexhibitculpabilityevenif onlyone’sactionswere directlynegligent.Several
casesillustrate thispoint: Moorev.Foster,Miss.,180 So. 73; Oliver v. Miles, Miss.,110 So. 666, 50
A.L.R.357; Reyherv. Mayne,90 Colo.856, 10 P.2d 1109; Benson v.Ross, 143 Mich.452, 106 N.W. 1120,
114 Am.St.Rep.675.
In consideringappellantsTice andSimonson’s case citations,the Supreme Courtof California
analyzedcase lawthroughadditional decisionsservingasantithetical positionstoappelleeSummers’
argument.Boththe cases referenced, Kraftv.Smith,24 Cal.2d124, 148 P.2d 23 and Hernandezv.
Southern California GasCo.,213 Cal.384, 2 P.2d 360, indicatedhow a defendant’sexcusedfromliability

3. 3
shouldthe disputedactionconstituteanindependentlyactedupontortbyanotheror how a plaintiff’s
mandatedinlinkingthe purportednegligence toaninjury. The highcourt ruledthateach citation belied
the matter before themsince bothhaddistinguishablefactsandinformation, fromKraftv.Smith’sone
allegedtortfeasortoHernandezv.Southern California GasCo. neglectingarulingaboutlinking
negligencetoinjury. Furthermore,the appellantscitedanothercase, Christensen v.LosAngeles
Electrical Supply Co.,112 Cal.App.629, 297 P.614, that dealtwithsomeone notbeingliable once the
litigantknockeddownapedestrianwiththeircarand a resultingvehicle ranoverthe victim. Asthe case
before themdenotedzerointerveningcause thatgeneratedthe injury,thisreference,akintothe
appellants’previoustwocitations,resultedinanargumentexcludingmerit.Withthe appellantscase
nowreducedto promulgatingirrelevantcase law inhopesfora reversal,the Supreme Courtof
Californiacontendedwithnumerousverdictsalignedwithappellee Summers’ position,resultingin
affirmingthe lowercourt’sfindings.
Conclusion:
The basisfor the affirmationstemmedfromasource,Dean Wigmore,statinga unique
circumstance aboutshiftingthe burdenof proof froma plaintifftoa defendant.Fromthe Rest.,Torts,
sec.432, he penned:“Whentwoormore personsby theiracts are possiblythe sole cause of a harm,or
whentwoor more acts of the same personare possiblythe sole cause,andthe plaintiff hasintroduced
evidence thatthe one of the twopersons,orthe one of the same person’stwoacts,isculpable,the n
the defendanthasthe burdenof provingthatthe otherperson,or hisotheract, was the sole cause of
the harm.” Throughthis shiftof a general legal benchmark,asitiscustom forplaintiffstobearthe
burdenof proof,the court struck a unique balance inpreservinganinjuredparty’srightful claimfor
redresswhile assuringthatall evidencebe providedtotie the factsto damages. Forpersonal injury
cases, as evidencedbythiscase,particularfactorswarrantedthisprocedural change soasto ensure the
court renderedameaningful decisionthatpenalized the offendersforSummers’harm.The sole route to
examine the proof linkedtothe damagescouldonly,perthe trial courtand highcourt’sreasoning, be
affordedbythe appellants.AsTice and Simonson’s position came withoutanadequately compelling
defense endorsedby preexistentjudicial rulings, whereasSummers’case entailednumerousrulingsthat
reinforced hisclaim, the SupremeCourtof California upheldapriorjudgmentinhisfavor.