summers v tice

summers v tice - this on the ground that only one bullet...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
John Tomberlin LWSO 100 Case Brief Summers v. Tice Parties involved: Summers, Plaintiff is suing Tice and Simonson for injuries resultant from shotgun wounds. Facts: Tice and Simonson (not a direct party in this case), were out quail hunting. 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. Original ruling was against both defendants on the grounds of dual negligence. Tice is appealing
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: this on the ground that only one bullet struck Summers in his eye which means that either he or Simonson fired that round but only one of them. Combined with previous testimony it cannot be proved that it was a round fired by Tice that was the proximate cause of Summers injury, and it is even more likely that this round came from Simonson’s shotgun. Ruling: In appeal judgment was affirmed. Court Rationale:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online