Connection lost
Server error
Summers v. Tice Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Two hunters negligently shot towards the plaintiff, but only one’s shot caused the injury. Because it was impossible to determine which hunter was responsible, the court held both liable, shifting the burden to them to prove their innocence.
Legal Significance: Established the doctrine of alternative liability, which shifts the burden of proof on causation to multiple negligent defendants when it is uncertain which one caused the plaintiff’s single, indivisible injury, thus preventing an innocent plaintiff from being left without a remedy.
Summers v. Tice Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Charles Summers, defendant Tice, and defendant Simonson were hunting quail together. The three men formed a triangle, with Summers uphill from the two defendants, who were aware of his location. A quail was flushed and flew in a direction between the plaintiff and the defendants. Both Tice and Simonson fired their shotguns, loaded with identical ammunition, in the plaintiff’s direction at or near the same time. Plaintiff was struck by two birdshot pellets, one lodging in his eye and causing serious injury, and the other in his upper lip. Due to the simultaneous nature of the shots and identical ammunition, it was impossible for the plaintiff to prove which defendant fired the specific shot that caused the primary injury to his eye. The trial court found that both defendants were negligent in shooting towards the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When two defendants have breached a duty of care toward the plaintiff, but the evidence cannot establish which defendant’s breach was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s single, indivisible injury, must the plaintiff’s claim fail for lack of proof of causation?
No. The judgment against both defendants is affirmed. When it is proven Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
When two defendants have breached a duty of care toward the plaintiff, but the evidence cannot establish which defendant’s breach was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s single, indivisible injury, must the plaintiff’s claim fail for lack of proof of causation?
Conclusion
This case established the landmark tort doctrine of alternative liability, creating a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim venia
Legal Rule
Where two or more defendants commit substantially similar negligent acts, one of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
Legal Analysis
The California Supreme Court addressed a fundamental problem in tort law: a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Two defendants negligently shot in the plaintiff’s direction, but only one