Summers v. Tice - fault of another. Rational: The defendant...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Summers v. Tice 33 Ca. 2d 80 (1948) Fact: Operative Facts: 2 hunters were hunting quail, and when a quail flew between the hunters and a passing bystander, they both pulled the trigger, and one of them hit the innocent bystanders. There was no way to tell between which person shot the bystander in the eye. Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff can sue when he cannot narrow the actual person that caused the harm to him. Rule: If there are several defendants who could have done the harm, but only one of them did, then the plaintiff may still sue, and the defendants would have the burden to state they did not do it, or it was the
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: fault of another. Rational: The defendant is the one in harm, and it would be unfair to him to not have a course of resolution, just because they cannot pin point who exactly did so, but if he can narrow it down to a reasonable group, then they can fight over whether or not they should be the one in the wrong. Holding: Broad: Narrow: If a person is shot, and have a general idea of who did so, but dont know which one, then the person may sue both of them. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online