49 F.2d 533 (D.D.C. 1931), 5073, Schweinhaut v. Flaherty

Docket Nº5073.
Citation49 F.2d 533
Party NameSCHWEINHAUT v. FLAHERTY.
Case DateApril 06, 1931
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 533

49 F.2d 533 (D.D.C. 1931)

SCHWEINHAUT

v.

FLAHERTY.

No. 5073.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

April 6, 1931

Argued March 11, 1931.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

C. H. Merillat, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Harry T. Whelan and William B. O'Connell, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and GRONER, Associate justices.

GRONER, Associate Justice.

This action was originally brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by Delia Flaherty, appellee, whom we shall hereafter call plaintiff, against Wardman Park Taxicab Company, Inc., appellant, whom we shall hereafter call defendant, and was to recover from the defendant damages for personal injuries done to the plaintiff by carelessly and negligently driving a taxicab against her when crossing a street in the city of Washington.

The declaration alleges that the driver of the taxicab was the defendant's servant, and

Page 534

engaged in its business. Defendant moved for a directed verdict on two grounds: First, that the evidence showed that the taxicab was not engaged at the time of the accident on business of the company but in the personal affairs of the driver in transporting to her home a woman who was not a pay passenger; and, second, that the evidence showed that the accident was due to plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Defendant was the operator of taxicabs in the city of Washington, and had two exclusive concessions or stands, one located at Wardman Park Hotel and the other at Chastleton Apartment Hotel. Its drivers were instructed that, when three of its cabs drew up to the Chastleton stand, the cab at the head of the line should pull off and proceed to the other stand. When a cab was dismissed by a passenger, its duty was to report to the Wardman Park stand for directions, and, while in transit from one point to another, the driver was at liberty and expected to take on a passenger if hailed for that purpose. When not carrying passengers, the driver was expected to be on one or the other stand. There was no regular place fixed for the drivers to get their meals during working hours, but they were warned to use as little mileage as possible for that purpose, and not to go out of their way to eat.

On the evening in question, the driver of the taxicab involved had taken a passenger from the Chastleton Hotel to the Wyoming Apartments, and had then gone back to the Chastleton again. About 9 o'clock, while he was in line at the Chastleton, two other taxis of the defendant came up, and this required him to move. The driver, who had invited a female friend to meet him at the Chastleton that evening, and who had done so, thereupon invited her to get into the cab and go with him while he had his supper, and promised then to drive her home. He paid the company nothing for her transportation. The accident occurred after he had gotten his supper and was driving his woman companion to her home, which was several blocks out of his regular course.

The first question for determination is whether the action of the driver of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • 50 F.2d 986 (D.D.C. 1931), 5019, Turoff v. Burch
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • 1 Junio 1931
    ...more than 32,000 persons were killed, and several hundred thousand injured by automobiles. In Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533, 535, decided April 6, 1931, Mr. Justice Groner, speaking for the court, observed 'that conditions in this respect are growing worse rather tha......
  • 350 P.2d 870 (Wash. 1960), 34733, Foote v. Grant
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court of Washington
    • 24 Marzo 1960
    ...of Rossman, J., in McDowell v. Hurner, 142 Or. 611, 617, 629, 20 P.2d 395, 88 A.L.R. 578. Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533, held the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applicable to taxicabs, but did not extend the doctrine to cover private motor vehicles. The illogic o......
  • 54 F.2d 220 (10th Cir. 1931), 510, Woody v. Utah Power & Light Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 1931
    ...the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to automobiles operating on the crowded streets of large cities. Schweinhaut v. Flaherty (App.D.C.) 49 F.2d 533; District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63, 51 S.Ct. 52, 75 L.Ed. The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for injuries to a third person cau......
  • 386 A.2d 1195 (D.C. 1978), 11597, District of Columbia v. Davis
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 19 Mayo 1978
    ...orders. Meyers v. National Detective Agency, Inc., D.C.App., 281 A.2d 435 (1971), citing Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533 (1931). Thus, the liability of employers extends to cases where the employee's negligent acts are contrary to the given instructions, so Page 1203 a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • 50 F.2d 986 (D.D.C. 1931), 5019, Turoff v. Burch
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • 1 Junio 1931
    ...more than 32,000 persons were killed, and several hundred thousand injured by automobiles. In Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533, 535, decided April 6, 1931, Mr. Justice Groner, speaking for the court, observed 'that conditions in this respect are growing worse rather tha......
  • 350 P.2d 870 (Wash. 1960), 34733, Foote v. Grant
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court of Washington
    • 24 Marzo 1960
    ...of Rossman, J., in McDowell v. Hurner, 142 Or. 611, 617, 629, 20 P.2d 395, 88 A.L.R. 578. Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533, held the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applicable to taxicabs, but did not extend the doctrine to cover private motor vehicles. The illogic o......
  • 54 F.2d 220 (10th Cir. 1931), 510, Woody v. Utah Power & Light Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 1931
    ...the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to automobiles operating on the crowded streets of large cities. Schweinhaut v. Flaherty (App.D.C.) 49 F.2d 533; District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63, 51 S.Ct. 52, 75 L.Ed. The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for injuries to a third person cau......
  • 386 A.2d 1195 (D.C. 1978), 11597, District of Columbia v. Davis
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 19 Mayo 1978
    ...orders. Meyers v. National Detective Agency, Inc., D.C.App., 281 A.2d 435 (1971), citing Schweinhaut v. Flaherty, 60 App.D.C. 151, 49 F.2d 533 (1931). Thus, the liability of employers extends to cases where the employee's negligent acts are contrary to the given instructions, so Page 1203 a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results