Kentucky Cab Co. v. City of Louisville

• Decision Date: 21 June 1929
• Citation: 230 Ky. 216,18 S.W.2d 992
• Parties: KENTUCKY CAB CO. v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

18 S.W.2d 992

230 Ky. 216

KENTUCKY CAB CO. v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

June 21, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division.

Action by the Kentucky Cab Company against the City of Louisville and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J Franklin Fairleigh, J. J. Kavanaugh, and M. D. Elston, all of Louisville, for appellant.

Wm. T Baskett, of Louisville, for appellees.

REES J.

The appellant, Kentucky Cab Company, a corporation authorized by its charter to engage in the taxicab, baggage transfer, and ambulance business, owns and operates a number of taxicabs in the city of Louisville. On December 19, 1928, the general council of the city of Louisville adopted an ordinance requiring owners and drivers of taxicabs to procure a permit or license before operating on the streets of the city fixing the rate of fare that may be charged, and prescribing other regulations. Conceiving that the ordinance is illegal and void, the appellant brought this action to enjoin the city and various city officials from enforcing its provisions.

Appellant's criticism of the ordinance is directed to sections 5, 6, and 7 thereof.

Section 5 provides that before any permit is issued for a taxicab, the owner shall file with the board of public safety a policy of accident insurance in some good and solvent incorporated insurance company, licensed and admitted to do business in Kentucky, which policy shall continuously cover each and every taxicab owned and operated or leased by the applicant, and by which the insurance company shall be liable in the sum of not more than $5,000 for any one accident resulting in bodily injury to or the death of one person, and not more than $10,000 total liability on account of any one accident. The policy shall further provide that the insurance company shall be liable in the sum of $1,000 for any or all property damage which may occur by reason of the negligent or careless operation of any taxicab covered by the policy.

In lieu of the liability insurance it is provided that the applicant for a license may deposit with the board of public safety a bond with a corporate surety approved by the board in the sum of not less than $30,000 running to the city of Louisville, conditioned that in the event of any injury or damage to any person or property growing out of negligence in the operation of any taxicab owned, operated, or leased by the insured, the person or persons so injured in his or their person or property shall have a right of action thereon in not exceeding the sums above mentioned.

Section 6 provides that each taxicab shall be equipped with a taximeter of such type and design as may be approved by the board of public safety, which shall be subject to inspection from time to time by the bureau of weights and measures or by the board of public safety. A "taximeter" is defined in the ordinance as "any instrument or device attached to a vehicle measuring mechanically the distance, time or zone unit upon which the taxi fare is based, and recording by figures on a dial the fare as it accrues."

Section 7 provides that the taxicab license granted in the ordinance may be revoked at any time by the board of public safety if the vehicle shall be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or if the driver of the vehicle shall be convicted of a violation of any city, state, or national law, or if the owner or driver shall violate any of the terms of the ordinance and that the license so revoked shall not be reissued.

In Commonwealth of Kentucky, for the use and benefit of the city of Hazard, v. Kelley, 17 S.W.2d 1017, decided on May 28, 1929, and not yet [officially] reported, it was held that an ordinance requiring owners and operators of taxis to carry liability insurance was valid; the court saying: "As the requirement of liability insurance is in furtherance of the public safety, the situation is one where the rights of the individual will have to give way to the higher rights of the public. We therefore rule that the requirement is not an unreasonable exercise of the police power." That decision is in harmony with the decisions of other jurisdictions in which the validity of similar legislation has been uniformly sustained. A statute requiring operators of motor vehicles for hire, excepting street cars and omnibusses, to secure insurance for the protection of persons injured by their operation, was held to be valid by the Supreme Court of the United States in Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 44 S.Ct. 257, 68 L.Ed. 596. A collection of the cases from numerous jurisdictions upholding the validity of statutes and ordinances requiring owners or operators of automobiles for hire to carry insurance for the protection of persons who may be injured will be found in a note to the Banton Case in 68 L.Ed. 596.

Appellant insists, however, that section 5 of the ordinance is void for uncertainty, since neither the kind of insurance nor the extent of the liability thereunder is fixed. It is argued that it is not clear from a reading of section 5 of the ordinance whether the required insurance refers to insurance upon an injured third person regardless of the existence or nonexistence of negligence in the operation of the taxicab causing the...