Jones v. Quaker City Cab Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1924
• Docket Number: 106-1924
• Citation: 84 Pa.Super. 80
• Parties: Jones v. Quaker City Cab Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

84 Pa.Super. 80

Jones v. Quaker City Cab Company, Appellant

No. 106-1924

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 20, 1924

Argued October 17, 1924

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co.-1922 No. 4897, on verdict for the plaintiff in the case of Evan T Jones v. Quaker City Cab Company.

Trespass to recover damages for injuries to an automobile. Before Martin, P. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court and in the following opinion of the court below discharging the rule for a new trial:

The statement of claim averred that the defendant, by its servant, agent or employee, was driving the automobile belonging to defendant, which came into collision with plaintiff's car. This averment was not denied, and the verdict of the jury established that the collision between the taxicab belonging to the defendant, and plaintiff's automobile, was caused by the negligence of the chauffeur of the cab.

That the taxicab was owned by the defendant company, that it was driven by a chauffeur who was an employee of the company, and at the time of the accident that he was engaged in the service of his employer is not disputed; but it is claimed that as it did not affirmatively appear in the presentation of plaintiff's side of the case that the taxicab was carrying passengers in the regular course of defendant's business at the time of the collision, a nonsuit should have been entered; and although the chauffeur of the taxicab, when called as a witness by defendant, testified that he was engaged in his employer's business at the time of the accident, it is urged that a judgment should be entered n. o v.

The defendant, the Quaker City Cab Company, is a corporation engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire. The cabs are used for business purposes. When driven by an employee of the company the presumption is raised that the employee is acting in the line of his duty, under the ruling of the recent case of Stroman v. Penn Motors Corporation in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 174 of October Term, 1923, which was an appeal from Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County. Porter, J., said -- " It was formally admitted by the defendant upon the trial that the truck was owned by the defendant, the Penn Motors Corporation. It is further admitted that the driver of this truck was employed by the defendant, the Penn Motors Corporation. Where, as here, the car is used for business purposes, the fact that it bears the name of the defendant and is driven by its employee, is sufficient to raise a presumption that it was driven by the employee in the line of his duty. In this respect there is a distinction between pleasure cars and business trucks. The former are not designed primarily for use in connection with the...