Hanks v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1939
• Docket Number: 5806
• Citation: 187 So. 817
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: HANKS v. SHREVEPORT YELLOW CABS, Inc.

187 So. 817

HANKS v. SHREVEPORT YELLOW CABS, Inc.

No. 5806

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

March 8, 1939

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J.H Stephens, Judge.

Action by Wallace H. Hanks against Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc. based on an amount allegedly due the plaintiff at termination of his employment as a taxicab driver for the defendant wherein the defendant sought a judgment in reconvention. From a judgment rejecting demands of plaintiff and defendant's reconventional demand, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

An agreement under which taxicab driver who was employed on commission basis, and had right to terminate the employment contract at any time without restriction, was responsible for damages occasioned to and by taxicab company's cab while it was in driver's possession and company deducted amount of such damages from indemnity fund created through weekly deposits taken from driver's earnings, to care for the damages was not void on ground that it was unilateral potestative and against public policy.

Eugene J. Coen, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Jackson & Mayer, of Shreveport, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

Judgment for $321, and for the additional sum of $150 as attorney's fees, is sought herein by plaintiff. The suit is brought under the provisions of Act 150 of 1920, as amended. This legislation relates to the prompt payment of wages on the termination of employment. He alleges that prior to August 7, 1937, he was employed as a taxicab driver for the defendant corporation, and that on said date he was discharged without just cause. The aforementioned principal amount consists of the following claimed items:

$80 for certain weekly deposits made with defendant; $36 for deducted " shop" charges; $5 for accrued wages or commissions; $200 as penalties under said act.

Defendant, in the answer, denies that it owes plaintiff any amount. It avers that he was employed on two different occasions under a certain described employment agreement, and that he is indebted unto it in the sum of $64.84. It asks a dismissal of plaintiff's demands and a judgment in reconvention for the last named amount.

There was judgment rejecting the demands of plaintiff and also defendant's reconventional demand. Plaintiff appealed. Defendant has neither appealed nor filed answer to the perfected appeal of its opponent.

The defendant company owns numerous cabs that are used in the taxi service in the City of Shreveport. It employs and pays the drivers thereof on a commission basis. Each is engaged under the agreement and understanding that he will be responsible for and pay all damages sustained by a cab while under his control and also those occasioned to other property by reason of his driving. An indemnity fund is created through weekly deposits to care for the mentioned losses. The written rules and regulations of the company, which are explained to the employee when engaged and on which he is examined, make reference to the employment plan. It is therein stated that, " Drivers are responsible for their cab and the other car." They also provide: " Be sure to check your cab over before you go out in it; " the purpose of this being to assure the driver that it is free from damage caused by another employee. Other pertinent provisions are: " Look on the hook in the chauffeurs' room for shop charges, and if your name appears on a ticket and you know nothing of the damage to the cab see Henry", and, " A $1.00 deposit taken out each week in the office is to be used for any shop charge you may have."

The explained arrangement was adopted by the company with the view and hope of obtaining a reduction in the number of automobile accidents previously experienced. It had been invoked in other localities and proved to be effective.

The record discloses that plaintiff was in defendant's employ on two separate occasions. His first period of employment began in the year 1935. It ended in May, 1936, when he was discharged for an infraction of the company's rules. At that time he had on deposit about $30. From this amount there was deducted the damage charge that existed, and the balance was then paid to him.

He was...