McEwen v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.

92 S.W.2d 308 (1936)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

McEwen v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
92 S.W.2d 308 (1936)

Sean Carroll headshot
  • Written by Sean Carroll, JD

Facts

Mrs. McEwen fell and was injured as she stepped down from a train operated by Texas & Pacific Railway Co. (Railway) (defendant). A Railway employee was attempting to help Mrs. McEwen when she fell. McEwen’s husband (plaintiff) brought a negligence suit against Railway. At trial, Railway asked Mrs. McEwen if she was “rather fond of playing bridge.” McEwen objected to the question and his counsel stated: “We object to that. I do not think it is material.” The trial judge overruled the objection. The jury found that the Railway employee was negligent, but also that Mrs. McEwen was contributorily negligent. The trial court ruled in favor of the Railway. McEwen appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Funderburk, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 964,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,006 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Evidence

Key Terms

  • General ObjectionAn objection that does not specifically state the grounds on which it is based.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial