Malone v. Gary
| Decision Date | 14 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 37418,37418,1 |
| Citation | 98 Ga.App. 699,106 S.E.2d 320 |
| Parties | Joe MALONE v. G. H. GARY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The judge did not err in affirming the award of the Workmen's Compensation Board.
An application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed by Green H. Gary against Joe Malone, doing business as the Harlem Cab Company.
On the hearing it was stipulated that: Joe Malone applied for and obtained a permit to operate thirty-nine taxicabs in Albany, Georgia. The evidence disclosed in part that: each of the thirty-nine cabs had 'Harlem Cab Company' written on its side; Malone owned only one of the thirty-nine cabs; he allowed the owners of automobiles to operate on his line for a fee of $3 per week; the owners of the cabs made their own financial arrangements with the cab drivers; the claimant drove a cab owned by George Holliday which was operated on the Harlem Cab Company line; the claimant earned an average weekly wage of $45; the claimant was injured while changing a tire on the cab he was driving.
The ordinance under which Malone obtained the license to 'engage in the business of operating taxicabs' provides:
'Taxicabs and Vehicles for Hire.
Article I. In General.
'Sec. 1. Definitions. The word 'taxicab' as used in this chapter is defined to be a motor driven vehicle seating not less than five passengers and not more than seven passengers, including the driver.
'The word 'driver' as used in this chapter shall mean and include any and every person in charge of or operating a taxi cab, as herein defined, whether as owner, agent, employee or otherwise. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 2. Permit required; compliance with chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of operating taxicabs on the highways of the city until they have secured a permit and otherwise complied with provisions of this chapter. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 3. Application for permit; information required. Every person desiring to engage in the business of operating taxicabs in the city shall, in each and every year in which the business is proposed to be carried on, first make a written application to the police committee of the board of commissioners for a permit to operate such business on the streets and highways of the city. Such application shall be in writing, verified under oath that the contents are true, and shall be filed with the city clerk. The application shall contain the full name and address of the applicant and the location from which the proposed business is to be operated; if a corporation, the name of all the officers; if a partnership, the name of all the partners; the number of vehicles to be operated under such permit, if granted; the type of automobiles to be used together with the motor number and tag number of each vehicle, and such other information as the police committee may require. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 4. All vehicles to be owned by applicant. All of the vehicles operated under a permit, required by Section 2, of this chapter, must be owned by the applicant. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 5. Investigation of applicant for permit. The police committee shall make or cause to be made an investigation including any hearing deemed to be necessary as to each application for a permit for the operation of such taxicabs. In determining whether a permit shall be issued the police committee may investigate the fitness of the applicant to engage in the business of operating taxicabs and whether or not the public interest requires the services. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 6. Refusal of permit; right of appeal. If the police committee should find that the public convenience and necessity do not justify the services, or that the applicant is not a fit and proper person or not qualified to engage in the taxi business, the permit, required by section 2 of this chapter, may be refused. From the decision of the police committee in refusing any permit the applicant shall have the right to file an appeal to the board of commissioners. Such appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk within five days from the decision complained of. The decision of the board of commissioners shall be final. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 7. Issuance of permit. If the application for a permit is approved by the police committee, the committee shall issue the applicant a permit to operate a designated number of taxicabs upon compliance with all of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 8. Issuance of licenses; posting, etc. The applicant shall then present the permit to the city clerk and shall likewise deposit with the city clerk an insurance policy as required by section 9 of this chapter, and shall satisfy the city clerk that each vehicle has been properly inspected and approved by the chief of police. Upon payment of the license fees prescribed by the city, and upon compliance with the provisions of this chapter, a license shall be issued by the city clerk by delivering to the owner for each car a suitable card, signed by the city clerk, which shall contain the official license number of the taxicab. Such card shall be continuously displayed in a conspicious place in the taxicab. (Ord.No.1434.)
'Sec. 9. Liability Insurance. No person shall be allowed to drive or operate a taxicab in the city, and it shall be unlawful so to do, unless and until a liability insurance policy is procured and filed with the city clerk. Such policy must be signed by a surety or insurance company authorized to do business in Georgia, and the form of policy shall be approved by the city attorney and the police committee. The amount of liability insurance for each taxicab shall be as follows: An amount of not less than five thousand dollars for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rapid Group, Inc. v. Yellow Cab of Columbus, A01A1363.
...of how the local ordinance functions in this way differs, see Karwoski, the differences are not relevant here. 3. See Malone v. Gary, 98 Ga.App. 699, 106 S.E.2d 320 (1958); Atlanta Million Co-op. Cab Co. v. Wilson-Acomb, 108 Ga.App. 465, 133 S.E.2d 437 (1963); Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co., 146......
-
Naseef v. Cord, Inc.
...It has also been suggested that such provisions are intended to protect those who are hired to drive taxicabs. Malone v. Gary, 98 Ga.App. 699, 106 S.E.2d 320 (Ct.App.1958). However, we doubt that that was the intention of the City of Cord does not deny that the contract plainly violates the......
-
Yellow Cab of Chatham County, Inc. v. Karwoski, A96A2091
...451 (1954); and one case involving the City of Albany Code which was similar to the City of Atlanta Code, that being Malone v. Gary, 98 Ga.App. 699, 106 S.E.2d 320 (1958). Both the Atlanta and Albany Codes required that any driver be either an owner or employee of the taxicab company. In bo......
-
Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co.
...1. This case is controlled by the holdings of this court in Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams, 91 Ga.App. 220, 85 S.E.2d 451; Malone v. Gary, 98 Ga.App. 699, 106 S.E.2d 320; and Atlanta Million Coop. Cab Co. v. Wilson-Acomb, 108 Ga.App. 465(1), 133 S.E.2d 437. In Diamond Cab, this court held, "The D......