Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co.
| Citation | 329 N.E.2d 278,28 Ill.App.3d 656 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 60195,60195 |
| Parties | Lois M. ANDERSON, Individually and for the sole use and benefit of Pamela Denise Walker, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY, a corporation, and John Hearns, Defendants-Appellees, and Garland W. Campbell et al., Defendants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Heller & Morris; Torshen, Fortes & Eiger, Ltd., Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Jesmer & Harris; Julius Jesmer and Charles E. Tannen, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.
The plaintiff, Lois Anderson, was shot when a gun in the pocket of a passenger discharged as she entered a Yellow cab. She sued the passenger, Leon Joiner, the driver of the cab, John Hearns, the Yellow Cab Company and certain dram shop defendants for damages. Counts I and II of her complaint which alleged the negligence of Hearns and the cab company were dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff concedes that Count II of her complaint did not state a cause of action. She also concedes that one of the points raised in her brief, that Hearns violated an ordinance of the City of Chicago by stopping to pick her up when he already had a passenger in his cab, is ill-founded. Her remaining contention is that Count I of her complaint stated a cause of action because Hearns, as the agent of the Yellow Cab Company, breached the duty of high care the company owed to its passengers to protect them from reasonably foreseeable injuries.
On July 29, 1972, at about 2:15 a.m., Hearns was driving his cab south on Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago. Joiner was his only passenger. The plaintiff and a friend were standing on the corner of 67th Street and Cottage Grove and they hailed the taxi. Joiner recognized the plaintiff's friend and told the driver to stop and pick them up. According to the plaintiff's complaint, Hearns was aware that Joiner was 'high' or intoxicated or not acting in a normal manner but despite this he pulled his cab over to where the plaintiff and her companion were standing. Joiner had a conversation with the plaintiff and in the process pulled out a roll of bills and showed it to her. The plaintiff started to get into the taxi. As she did so, Joiner put the currency back into his pocket and a gun that was in one of his pockets fired. The plaintiff was struck by the bullet and suffered permanent injuries including paralysis from the waist down.
A taxicab is a common carrier. A common carrier of passengers is required to do all that human care, vigilance and foresight can reasonably do to carry a passenger safely, consistent with the mode of conveyance adopted and the practical operation of its business. Lutz v. Chicago Transit Authority (1962), 36 Ill.App.2d 79, 183 N.E.2d 579. This duty includes the obligation of using due diligence to protect its passengers from assault, injury and abuse by third persons. Letsos v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 118 Ill.App.2d 26, 254 N.E.2d 645. A carrier will be held liable for misconduct by one passenger which causes injury to another where the carrier has reason to anticipate the incident, and fails to exercise the degree of care and vigilance practicable under the circumstances to prevent injury Letsos v. Chicago Transit Authority (1970), 47 Ill.2d 437, 265 N.E.2d 650.
In Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Pillsbury (1887), 123 Ill. 9, 14 N.E. 22, the court said that a carrier is under a duty to omit no care to discover and prevent danger to a passenger or passengers that is reasonable and practicable. The common carrier in that case was held liable for injuries sustained by one of its passengers. The railroad had been transporing nonstrikers during a strike. Police were needed to protect the nonstrikers as they boarded the train because strikers gathered around the train and hooted, jeered and threw rocks. On the day the plaintiff was injured, the nonstrikers boarded the train amidst a particularly angry crowd of strikers. The nonstrikers sat in cars with other passengers including the plaintiff. About a mile and a half from the boarding point, the train stopped for a crossing and strikers got on the train, entered the cars where the nonstrikers were sitting, beat them and indiscriminately fired guns. The plaintiff was hit by a bullet. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. LYFT, Inc.
...so long as there is room and there is no legal excuse for refusal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co. , 28 Ill. App. 3d 656, 657, 329 N.E.2d 278 (1975) ("A taxicab is a common carrier.").¶ 7 Even if Lyft is not a common carrier, Doe argued, it should nonethele......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Jiffy Cab Co.
...out of the use of an automobile). Appellants point to the fact that a taxicab is considered a common carrier (Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 656, 329 N.E.2d 278), and, as such, it "has a special duty to its passengers to take reasonable action to protect them against unrea......
-
Raube v. American Airlines, Inc.
...had sufficient indications of danger to its passengers to necessitate protective measures for their safety." Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co., 28 Ill.App.3d 656, 329 N.E.2d 278, 280, (1075); see also Gaines, 281 Ill.Dec. 688, 804 N.E.2d at 656 (defendant not liable for the actions of its passenge......
-
Manning v. Ashland Oil Co.
...not what may appear through the exercise of hindsight. Cunis v. Brennan (1974), 56 Ill.2d 372, 308 N.E.2d 617." Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co., 28 Ill.App.3d 656, 329 N.E.2d 278, 281. In Terhune v. A.H. Robins Co., supra, the court allowed the manufacturer to rely upon the physician's expertise......