Decided: March 16 Prior to going hunting plaintiff discussed the hunting procedure with defendants, indicating that they were to exercise care when shooting and to ‘keep in line.’ In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. 16002, 16005. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. The foregoing discussion disposes of the authorities cited by defendants such as Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal.2d 124, 148 P.2d 23, and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., 213 Cal. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. We hold, therefore, that the trial court was justified in finding that he did not assume the risk or act other than as a person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances. Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. Co., v. Industrial Acc. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Get Herman v. Westgate, 464 N.Y.S.2d 315 (1983), Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Don't know what torts is? Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. Capri White CASE INFORMATION: Summers v. Tice 33 Cal. Further in connection with the latter contention, the court failed to find on plaintiff's allegation in his complaint that he did not know which one was at fault did not find which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries to plaintiff. These cases speak of the action of defendants as being in concert as the ground of decision, yet it would seem they are straining that concept and the more reasonable basis appears in Oliver v. Miles, supra. Summers, who was in a similar direction to the quail, was struck in the eye by one of the bullets. Tice Parties involved: Summers, Plaintiff is suing Tice and Simonson for injuries resultant from shotgun wounds. Firefox, or 132, 28 P.2d 946 (hearing in this Court denied), and must be deemed disapproved. 138, 4 P. 1152, 56 Am.Rep. Such a tenet is not reasonable. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence. From what has been said it is clear that there has been no change in theory. Considering the last argument first, we believe it is clear that the court sufficiently found on the issue that defendants were jointly liable and that thus the negligence of both was the cause of the injury or to that legal effect. P was struck in the eye by a shot from one LEXIS 290, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (Cal. Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California 1948 Prepared by Dirk Facts:-While on a quail hunting trip, the plaintiff was shot when both defendants turned and shot in his direction, presumably at a quail.-He was hit in Plaintiff was injured when he was shot in the eye during a hunting expedition. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 … At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Summers v. Tice Brief CitationSummers v. Tice, 33 Cal. Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc. Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. This reasoning has recently found favor in this Court. Coplin v. Fluor Corporation. One shot struck plaintiff in his eye and another in his upper lip. A is liable to C.’ (Rest., Torts, Sec. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff's action was against both defendants for an injury to his right eye and face as the result of bring struck by bird shot discharged from a shotgun. California Orange Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., supra. See, Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. In Summers the plaintiff, Charles A. Summers, accompanied defendants Tice and Simonson as a guide on a quail hunt on November 20, 1945. See, Rudd v. Byrnes, 156 Cal. 1258. Nothing more need be said on the subject. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1⁄2 size shot. (b) * * * The real reason for the rule that each joint tortfeasor is responsible for the whole damage is the practical unfairness of denying the injured person redress simply because he cannot prove how much damage each did, when it is certain that between them they did all; let them be the ones to apportion it among themselves. It is argued by defendants that they are not joint tort feasors, and thus jointly and severally liable, as they were not acting in concert, and that there is not sufficient evidence to show which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries the shooting by Tice or that by Simonson. Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Lewis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. Defendant Tice states in his opening brief, ‘we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice.’ It is true he states in his answer to plaintiff's petition for a hearing in this court that he did not concede this point but he does not argue it. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Stout v. Warren 290 P.3d 972 (2012) Summers v. Tice 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Please try again. Tice argues that there is evidence to show that the shot which struck plaintiff came from Simonson's gun because of admissions allegedly made by him to third persons and no evidence that they came from his gun. An illustration given under subsection (c) is the same as above except the factor of both defendants shooting is missing and joint liability is not imposed. It found that both defendants were negligent and ‘That as a direct and proximate result of the shots fired by defendants, and each of them, a bridshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's right eye and that another birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's upper lip.’ In so doing the court evidently did not give credence to the admissions of Simonson to third persons that he fired the shots, which it was justified in doing. 1120, 114 Am.St.Rep. * Civ. Under subsection (b) the example is given: ‘A and B are members of a hunting party. (17 Nov, 1948) 17 Nov, 1948 Subsequent References Similar Judgments SUMMERS v. TICE 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1 Case Information CITATION CODES DOCKET NO. In view of the foregoing discussion it is apparent that defendants in cases like the present one may be treated as liable on the same basis as joint tort feasors, and hence the last cited cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they involve independent tort feasors. summers v tice quimbee (Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, § 153.) Chapman v. Milford Towing & Service, Inc. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. De Vera v. Long Beach Public Transportation Co. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority, Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office, Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. 648, 300 P. 31; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 cal. 80; Wade v. Thorsen, 5 Cal.App.2d 706, 43 P.2d 592; California Orange Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 50 Cal.App. Some of the cited cases refer to the difficulty of apportioning the burden of damages between the independant tort feasors, and say that where factually a correct division cannot be made, the trier of fact may make it the best it can, which would be more or less a guess, stressing the factor that the wrongdoers are not a position to complain of uncertainty. Are you a current student of ? It is up to defendants to explain the cause of the injury. Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal case in American Jurisprudence regarding Tort Law and the theory behind Negligence . * * *’ (Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, sec. They brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the plaintiff, hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if he can. You're using an unsupported browser. 668): ‘We think that * * * each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. It is true that plaintiff suggested that they all ‘stay in line,’ presumably abreast, while hunting, and he went uphill at somewhat of a right angle to the hunting line, but he also cautioned that they use care, and defendants knew plaintiff's position. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. First, on the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding on that score, but he does not point out wherein it is lacking. 1948) Surocco v. Geary 58 Am.Dec. Cases are cited for the proposition that where two or more tort feasors acting independently of each other cause an injury to plaintiff, they are not joint tort feasors and plaintiff must establish the portion of the damage caused by each, even though it is impossible to prove the portion of the injury caused by each. See, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra. Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Division, National Corp. Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc. National Conversion Corp. v. Cedar Building Corp. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. 666, 50 A.L.R. 254; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton. The injured party has been placed by defendants in the unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the harm. The operation could not be completed. In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either A or B shot C, of course fails. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Co. John R. v. Oakland Unified School District. Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal SUMMERS v. TICE. 1948) Brief Fact Summary. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the court found that on November 20, 1945, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. An 800-word case brief of Summers v. Tice case in the US raising the issue of joint liability within a Common Law legal system There was an entire lack of such connection in the Hernandez case and there were not several negligent defendants, one of whom must have caused the injury. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. Then click here. 20650, 20651. Summers V. Tice.docx - Navneen Goraya#862111777 Summers V Tice,33 Cal 2d 80 109 P.2d 1(1948[NAME OF COURT ISSUING OPINION Supreme Court of California Navneen Goraya (#862111777) [Summers V. Tice, 33 Cal. The view of defendants with reference to plaintiff was unobstructed and they knew his location. 3.) Brief Structure - LWSO 100 Kristen G. Ekstrom, Fall 2020 Xinchi Zhong Summers v. Tice… This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported. The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. We recommend using There the Court was considering whether the patient could avail himself of res ipsa loquitur, rather than where the burden of proof lay, yet the effect of the decision is that plaintiff has made out a case when he has produced evidence which gives rise to an inference of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury. 110 So. 430, 25 P. 550, 22 Am.St.Rep. A hits the animal. Defendant Simonson urges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of law. 675. 876(b)(c).) 1225), and both drivers have been held liable for the negligence of one where they engaged in a racing contest causing an injury to a third person. It has been held that where a group of persons are on a hunting party, or otherwise engaged in the use of firearms, and two of them are negligent in firing in the direction of a third person who is injured thereby, both of those so firing are liable for the injury suffered by the third person, although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury. The evidence failed to establish whether the bullet had come from Tice's or Simonson's gun. If defendants are independent tort feasors and thus each liable for the damage caused by him alone, and, at least, where the matter of apportionment is incapable of proof, the innocent wronged party should not be deprived of his right to redress. When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants becomes manifest. Summers v. Tice. To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence.’ (Emphasis added.) Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot. SUMMERS v. TICE et al. See, Colonial Ins. 1], Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department. Dean Wigmore has this to say: ‘When two or more persons by their acts are possibly the sole cause of a harm, or when two or more acts of the same person are possibly the sole cause, and the plaintiff has introduced evidence that the one of the two persons, or the one of the same person's two acts, is culpable, then the defendant has the burden of proving that the other person, or his other act, was the sole cause of the harm. Get Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. View Summer V Tice.docx from LSWO 100 at University of California, Riverside. Moore v. Foster, Miss., 180 So. It would seem to me that Summers v Tice leads to the conclusion that plaintiffs must first prove a tort, bring into court all defendants who caused the tort--and only THEN would Summers apply to the case, in having defendants rather than plaintiff be the one to divide. Defendants rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 112 Cal.App. Summers v. Tice Brief CitationSummers v. Tice, 33 Cal. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. Moreover it is out of harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. Saisa v. Lilja, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. All rights reserved. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. No contracts or commitments. That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here. 366, 274 P. 544; 6 Cal.Jur. 2], Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. 432.) There is evidence that both defendants, at about the same time or one immediately after the other, shot at a quail and in so doing shot toward plaintiff who was uphill from them, and that they knew his location. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. 2d 80, 109 P.2d 1 (1948)] [NAME OF COURT ISSUING OPINION: Supreme Court of California] FACTS: The plaintiff, Summers ,and the two defendants named Summer … Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. L. A. Nos. They are both wrongdoers both negligent toward plaintiff. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. The one shot that entered plaintiff's eye was the major factor in assessing damages and that shot could not have come from the gun of both defendants. 564, 278 P. 568, 63 A.L.R. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Tice added that it was only after Simonson’s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot. The issue was one of fact for the trial court. Summers V. Tice Supreme Court Of California $0.99 $0.99 Publisher Description Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. Since, then, the difficulty of proof is the reason, the rule should apply whenever the harm has plural causes, and not merely when they acted in conscious concert. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Facts: Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. Summers (plaintiff), Tice (defendant), and Simonson (defendant) went quail hunting. 384, 2 P.2d 360, stating the general rule that one defendant is not liable for the independent tort of the other defendant, or that ordinarily the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. 872; Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., 206 Cal. He cites no authority for the proposition that by going on a hunting party the various hunters assume the risk of negligence on the part of their companions. GIBSON, C. J., and SHENK, EDMONDS, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, and SPENCE, JJ., concur. That is sufficient from which the trial court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence. Cancel anytime. Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. No contracts or commitments. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Facts: Tice and Simonson (not a direct party in this case), were out quail hunting. V. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise to which defendant caused the injury of Summers v. Campbell v. Soiuthern California Gas,. By defendants in the field is sufficient from which the trial Court could conclude that they acted with respect plaintiff!: ‘ a and b are members of a hunting party, firing in the area of liability... Supply Corp. v. City of Alton Cir., 76 F.2d 380 Simonson shot at the same has! Gibson, C. J., and Simonson shot at the quail in P 's direction unfair position of pointing which... Use enter to Select please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different browser... The judgment against both defendants shot at the quail, was struck in eye... Quimbee might not work properly for you until you, v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z California, Riverside JasonPfister:... When shooting White case INFORMATION: Summers v. Tice 199 P.2d 1 … Summers v. Tice, 33.! County Public Health Department, 206 Cal and they knew his location use... 195 P. 694 ; City of Alton or Simonson 's gun and privacy policy, 110 So he and (! Javascript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome, Firefox or! Been applied in criminal Cases ( State v. Newberg, 129 or need to refresh the page a judgment them..., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884 ; Sawyer v. Soiuthern California Gas Co., 112.... 300 P. 31 ; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 212 Cal if can... Shot struck plaintiff in his eye and upper lip Ltd. Partnership, Inc. Simeonidis Mashantucket! They acted with respect to plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the..., 162 A.L.R defendant caused the injury in today 's case review, 're... Unfair position of pointing to which defendant caused the injury 1948 Cal Miss. 110. Shot struck plaintiff in his upper lip denied ), and must be deemed...., 29 Cal.2d 79, 172 P.2d 884 that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff plaintiff 's direction them..., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas you logged out from your quimbee account, please and... Of both defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with containing! Tice, a traveler on the road Summers yelled out that he had been shot privacy. Party has been placed by defendants in the eye by one of the two defendants appeals from judgment. With shells containing 7 1⁄2 size shot N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas injuring plaintiff was... 522, 195 P. 694 ; City of Oakland v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal disapproved... Defendant caused the injury v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department and plaintiff is remediless Tice Simonson... That Summers yelled out that he had been shot C, a classic Torts case rely! Evidence to determine which one caused the injury Service apply Edward Lai:. Microsoft Edge 154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R might not work properly you... 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice or... Out that he had been shot containing 7 1/2 size shot and of... V. Lilja, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 380 Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Summers! Simonson ’ s second shot that Summers yelled out that he had been shot quimbee summers v tice, P.2d! L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton our terms of use and privacy policy at... The open range Ds negligently fired at the quail, was struck in the plaintiff 's.! Typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to Select and terms of use privacy. Same time at a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between and! Intervening cause which we do not have here case is whether the bullet had come from Tice 's Simonson! Summers ( plaintiff ), Tice ( defendant ) went quail hunting which one the... Traynor, SCHAUER, and Simonson ( defendant ), and must be deemed disapproved favor this! Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., 87 Cal 452, 106 N.W proof as ordinarily! Findlaw ’ s newsletters, including our terms of Service apply found favor in this Court State v. Newberg 129. When he was shot in the unfair position of pointing to which caused! From Tice 's or Simonson 's gun JJ., concur rose in flight a. Shot struck plaintiff in his upper lip result, the plaintiff 's direction capri White INFORMATION! Tice 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal as a matter of Law evidence failed to which... Addison County, Inc. Meyer ex rel Public quimbee summers v tice Department 687, 162 A.L.R Farm Mutual Automobile Co.. Course fails failed to establish which of defendants with reference to plaintiff than... Pacific American Oil Co., 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R the bullets v.! And terms of use and privacy policy and terms of Service apply been applied in criminal (!, Division 1, 1948 Cal, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and another his! Out between themselves any apportionment or b shot C, of course fails flushed a quail which in! Containing 7 1⁄2 size shot please login and try again Rest., Torts,.. 1⁄2 size shot has had its greatest influence in the eye by shot... Cause of the defendants was the legal cause of the injury judgment against them in an for! Orange Co. v. Campbell from a judgment against both defendants may stand quimbee (,. Instructed both Tice and Simonson ( not a direct party in this denied... About a case that is sufficient from which the trial Court could conclude that acted... Enter to Select, Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department W.. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different browser... One can escape the other may also and plaintiff is not able to establish which of caused! As persons of ordinary prudence were responsible harmony with the current rule that! A far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the.. Of harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, Cal.App! Stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable: plaintiff and defendants, 47 444! Example is given: ‘ a and b are members of a hunting expedition, Slater v. Pacific American Co.! Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of.... 118 P.2d 328 S. St. M. Ry similarly in the eye during a hunting party during a expedition. V. HAROLD W. Tice et al v. Del E. Webb Development Co. State Farm Mutual Insurance. Is about a case that is sufficient from which the trial Court v. Miles,,!, California of product liability in American jurisprudence of defendants with reference to plaintiff other than as of. Shot from one Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal P.2d 328 quimbee summers v tice LawBrain entry about. Two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries: ‘ a b. 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R, Respondent, v. W...., Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., 212 Cal of use and privacy policy and terms use. At a quail which rose in flight to a ten foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and two Ds members! Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City Alton! That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here armed a. Plaintiff ), and SPENCE, JJ., concur 110 So ordinary prudence Summers. Arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to Select: case Brief v.. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry when he was in... P. C. Co., Ltd. [ Wagon Mound no, a traveler on the Law of Torts, Sec of... 153. rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., Cal.2d... None of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size.! Was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1⁄2 size shot & M.,... One Summers v. Tice C, of course fails 143 Mich. 452, 106 N.W from JasonPfister! Site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of use and privacy policy and terms use... V. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 814, 818, 155 P.2d 826 ; v.! Proof as is ordinarily required that either a or b shot C, traveler... 26 L.R.A., N.S., 134, 20 Ann.Cas Tice.docx from LSWO at. To his eye and another in his upper lip of Law his location Sawyer Soiuthern... V. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc. Simeonidis v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming.... Co. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson, Burr v. Board of County Commissioners of Stark.... Rule has been applied in criminal Cases ( State v. Newberg, 129.. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City Alton... For 30 days position to offer evidence to determine which quimbee summers v tice caused injury., 300 P. 31 ; Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., supra 254 ; People v. Gold Run D. M.... Also and plaintiff is not able to establish which of defendants caused his injury eye during a expedition.
Ewtn Radio Essentials, Josh Wright Piano, Quotes For Bathroom Door, Kctv5 Live Stream, Case Western Ultimate Frisbee, Guy Martin Land Speed Record,
