Summers v. Tice
33 Cal.2d 80 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two or more defendants act negligently, and their conduct brings about a single, indivisible injury to a plaintiff, but it cannot be determined which defendant's negligence was the actual cause of the harm, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove they were not the cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Charles Summers and defendants Harold Tice and Ernest Simonson were hunting quail together.
- Prior to the hunt, Summers discussed hunting safety with the defendants, instructing them to exercise care and "keep in line."
- During the hunt, Summers proceeded up a hill, placing the three men at the points of a triangle.
- Tice and Simonson both had an unobstructed view of Summers and were aware of his location.
- A quail was flushed and flew to a 10-foot elevation between Summers and the two defendants.
- Both Tice and Simonson shot at the quail, firing their 12-gauge shotguns in Summers' direction.
- Summers was struck by two birdshot pellets, one lodging in his right eye and another in his upper lip.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Charles Summers filed an action for personal injuries against defendants Harold Tice and Ernest Simonson in a California trial court.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury.
- The trial court found that both defendants were negligent and that their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
- The trial court entered a judgment against both defendants.
- Both defendants appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When two defendants act negligently towards a plaintiff, and their actions result in a single injury that could only have been caused by one of them, may both defendants be held jointly liable if the plaintiff cannot prove which one was the actual cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
Yes. When multiple defendants are negligent towards a plaintiff, and it is certain that the negligence of one of them caused the plaintiff's injury, they are both liable for the harm. The court reasoned that it would be an injustice to deny the innocent plaintiff recovery simply because he cannot prove which of the two wrongdoers was the direct cause of his injury. Both defendants were negligent by shooting in the plaintiff's direction, and they collectively created the situation that resulted in the harm. Therefore, the court shifted the burden of proof to the defendants, requiring each to absolve himself of liability. Since neither defendant could prove that their shot did not cause the injury, both were held jointly and severally liable. The court found this approach necessary to prevent a situation where both negligent parties could escape responsibility, leaving the plaintiff remediless.
Analysis:
This case establishes the landmark torts doctrine of "alternative liability." It creates a significant exception to the traditional rule requiring a plaintiff to prove causation against a specific defendant. The ruling prevents a manifest injustice where multiple negligent actors could escape liability due to the plaintiff's inability to solve an evidentiary puzzle they created. This principle is crucial in cases involving multiple potential tortfeasors and an indivisible injury, ensuring that the burden of uncertainty falls on the negligent defendants rather than the innocent victim.
Unlock the full brief for Summers v. Tice