Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Thomson v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 1957 — 353 U.S. 926 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Thomson v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
353 U.S. 9261 L. Ed. 2d 722·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 321.
Thomson v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Argued April 2, 1957.
Decided April 8, 1957.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. Mr. Justice Frankfurter would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. See his dissent in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whit-taker dissent for the reasons given in Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 559.
Beverly Tarpley argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief were Dallas Scarborough and Davis Scarborough. J. B. Look argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Pope.