Hoeffen v. Columbia Taxicab Company
| Decision Date | 31 December 1913 |
| Citation | 162 S.W. 694,179 Mo.App. 591 |
| Parties | ROLAND VAN HOEFFEN, Respondent, v. COLUMBIA TAXICAB COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Hugo Muench, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Ryan & Thompson for appellant.
(1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. Whether plaintiff was arrested "while a passenger in and on one of defendant's cabs" and said arrest was continued thereafter, or whether he was not arrested until after he had voluntarily alighted from said cab, in either event it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the chauffeur had authority from defendant to so arrest, and the evidence having shown expressly that he had no such authority plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Grayson v. Transit Co., 100 Mo.App. 60; Dwyer v. Same, 108 Mo.App 152. (2) Besides plaintiff will not be permitted to sue upon a cause of action arising out of alleged breach of duty growing out of the relation of carrier and passenger and recover for the violation of a duty growing out of the relation of master and servant. The distinction between the two causes of action is well marked and has been consistently observed by the appellate courts of this State. Raming v Railroad, 157 Mo. 477; Farber v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 81; McPeak v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 617; Snyder v. Railroad, 60 Mo. 413; Keen v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 301; McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 75. (3) When the plaintiff, at his own suggestion and of his own volition, alighted from the cab in safety to the street, he thereupon ceased to be a passenger. Defendant's liability thereafter is to be determined by the law of master and servant and plaintiff does not seek to recover on the theory of the existence of that relation. Grayson v. Transit Co., 100 Mo.App. 73; McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 75; Nener v. Railroad, 143 Mo.App. 407-8; Senf v. Railroad, 112 Mo.App. 74; Ickenroth v. Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 597; O'Brien v. Transit Co., 185 Mo. 263; McQuerry v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 255; Flynn v. Transit Co., 113 Mo.App. 185; Devoy v. Transit Co., 192 Mo. 210. (4) The defendant is not liable for the conduct of its servant who falsely arrests one not a passenger because such one refuses to pay his cab fare. A servant with authority to collect a debt has no authority to arrest the debtor for refusal to pay. Grayson v. Transit Co., 100 Mo.App. 73; Collette v. Revori, 107 Mo.App. 711; Milton v. Railroad, 193 Mo. 46; McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 108; Drolshagen v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 258; Farber v. Railroad, 32 Mo.App. 378, 116 Mo. 81; Krueger v. Railroad, 84 Mo.App. 358.
Charles E. Morrow for respondent.
(1) Plaintiff was first imprisoned in the taxicab. He thereafter alighted to the street but was still held and imprisoned in the street by the side of the taxicab until his arrest was procured by a police officer. Plaintiff did not cease to be a passenger by alighting to the street where he was still imprisoned until his arrest was procured. It was a continuous transaction and defendant is liable for the actions of its servants on the principle of respondeat superior. Of course, it grows out of the relation of master and servant, but the duties of the servant to the passenger control in determining the scope of the authority of the servant. McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 107; Dwyer v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 152; O'Brien v. Transit Co., 185 Mo. 263; Flynn v. Transit Co., 113 Mo.App. 185; McQuerry v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 255; Grayson v. Transit Co., 100 Mo.App. 60. The facts in this case show an abuse of the authority of the servants of defendant and not the lack of authority. Dwyer v. Transit Co., 180 Mo.App. 152; McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 107. (2) But even if plaintiff ceased to be a passenger when he alighted from the cab to the street defendant's servants having commenced the imprisonment while plaintiff was a passenger and continued it, the defendant is liable for all their acts as being within the scope of their authority. McDonald v. Railroad, 165 Mo.App. 107; Flynn v. Transit Co., 113 Mo.App. 185; McQuerry v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 255.
This is a suit for damages said to have accrued to plaintiff through his alleged false arrest by defendant. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
The suit proceeds as if the relation of passenger and carrier obtained between the parties at the time of the grievance complained of, and the question for consideration pertains to that subject-matter.
It appears defendant is an incorporated company engaged in the business of operating taxicabs in the city of St. Louis for the accommodation and transportation of all persons who may apply to it to convey them from one point to another. It owns, maintains and operates about forty such conveyances, in which passengers are transported about the city for hire. Moreover, defendant maintains a number of stations at prominent points in the city, from whence transportation on one of its taxicabs may be had, or where one may be called into the service of a passenger. One of such stations is maintained by defendant at the Planters Hotel, and it was from this one that defendant undertook to transport plaintiff to his home at No. 858 McLaran avenue, St. Louis.
It appears plaintiff visited this station and inquired of defendant's chauffeur the fare to be paid for his carriage in a taxicab from that point to his home, at the number above mentioned. The chauffeur in charge of the taxicab referred plaintiff to defendant's superintendent, who was stationed there in an office, for the information desired. Defendant's superintendent consulted the book, and besides remarking that the destination desired was 8400 north, stated the fare would be $ 3.70. Plaintiff accepted the proffer thus made and entered the cab for transportation. Besides the regular chauffeur on the taxicab, another man in uniform as a taxicab driver accompanied the chauffeur and rode on the seat with him. It is suggested by plaintiff that this extra man on the seat accompanied the chauffeur as a guard against impending assault from striking taxicab drivers, but this we regard as wholly immaterial to the issue made. At any rate, after having thus taken passage in defendant's conveyance, plaintiff was transported therein to within about a block from his residence, when it is said the taxicab became stalled or refused to proceed for some reason unknown to him. Thereupon plaintiff said to the chauffeur that he would pay his fare and walk from thence homeward, as it was but a short distance, and to this the chauffeur acceded. According to the evidence of plaintiff, he took from his pocket $ 3.70 while yet sitting in the taxicab and laid it on the seat on the box beside the chauffeur in settlement of the charge for transportation. The chauffeur did not accept the amount thus tendered, but looked at and read the meter on the conveyance and demanded five dollars for his transportation, saying such was the amount the meter registered as due, in accordance with the miles traveled. Plaintiff insisted that he had contracted in the presence of the chauffeur with defendant's superintendent for transportation home at the price of $ 3.70 and that this was all he would pay. Whereupon, it is said both defendant's chauffeur, whom the evidence shows to be authorized to collect fares for defendant, and his companion, took hold of the door on either side of the taxicab and imprisoned plaintiff therein demanding that he should pay five dollars instead of $ 3.70.
It is said the two men, one stationed at either side of the cab restrained plaintiff of his liberty and confined him therein for about one minute and rudely demanded that he should pay the five dollars so registered by the meter. After being thus restrained for about one minute, plaintiff says he opened the door of the taxicab and stepped out of the same upon the ground in the street, where defendant's chauffeur and his companion laid hold of him and restrained him for a considerable time, insisting that he should pay the five dollars demanded. Both the chauffeur and his companion, according to plaintiff's story, treated plaintiff rudely while thus standing beside the cab, held him fast by the arms, cursed and abused him and threatened to call a policeman. A considerable time was occupied in the argument while the parties stood beside the conveyance in the street, and plaintiff's grip, or hand bag, remained therein and a large number of people assembled there to view and witness the controversy. Plaintiff insisted that he owed but $ 3.70 and this he repeatedly offered to pay, while defendant's chauffeur insisted he should pay the five-dollar charge, and presently the chauffeur added an additional twenty cents for waiting time and then demanded $ 5.20 instead of five dollars as before. When about ten minutes had elapsed and the controversy still continued, defendant's chauffeur repaired to a near-by police station, leaving plaintiff in the meantime in charge of his companion, and enlisted the services of a policeman to enforce the payment of the five-dollar charge. Probably twenty minutes thereafter the policeman arrived with defendant's chauffeur and insisted that plaintiff should pay the amount charged by the chauffeur or accompany him to the station. Plaintiff declined to pay the bill and repeatedly tendered $ 3.70 instead. It is said the chauffeur insisted upon the policeman arresting plaintiff and he did so. By this time a large number of the residents of the neighborhood had assembled at the scene and among them plaintiff's father and his sister. Plaintiff's father offered to pay the charge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial