People's Taxicab Co. v. City of Wichita

• Decision Date: 07 July 1934
• Docket Number: 31753.
• Citation: 34 P.2d 545,140 Kan. 129
• Parties: PEOPLE'S TAXICAB CO. v. CITY OF WICHITA et al. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

34 P.2d 545

140 Kan. 129

PEOPLE'S TAXICAB CO. v. CITY OF WICHITA et al. ^[*]

No. 31753.

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 7, 1934

Syllabus by the Court.

Corporation owning no taxicabs, but furnishing telephone service, buying licenses for, and furnishing insurance for, individual taxicab operators in consideration for fixed daily compensation, has sufficient interest in operation of taxicabs as to entitle it to bring action to enjoin enforcement of alleged unreasonable ordinance regulating and licensing taxicabs.

City has broad discretionary powers to regulate operation of taxicabs, and ordinance doing so will not be held invalid unless it is unreasonable, oppressive, and arbitrary.

City has power to require taxicab operators to provide indemnity or bond against injury to persons or property occasioned by negligent operation of taxicabs (Rev. St. 1923, 13--413 13--910).

Ordinance requiring taxicab operators to carry personal liability insurance of not less than $10,000 for injury or death to one person and $20,000 for injury or death to more than one person, and $2,000 property damage for each taxicab, held not unreasonable (Rev. St. 1923, 13--413, 13--910).

City has power to fix license fee for taxicab operators so high as to be prohibitive.

Ordinance fixing license fee for taxicab operators at $60 per year held not unreasonable.

1. Where a corporation furnishes telephone service, buys licenses for, and furnishes insurance for, individuals who are operating taxicabs owned by themselves, and in return the individuals pay to the corporation $2.25 per day, the corporation has a sufficient interest in the operation of the taxicabs to constitute it a proper party to bring an action to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance regulating and licensing taxicabs, which it is alleged is invalid because some of its provisions are unreasonable.

2. A city has broad discretionary powers to regulate the operation of taxicabs upon its streets, and an ordinance doing so will not be held to be invalid unless it appears to be unreasonable and oppressive and arbitrary.

3. The provisions of the ordinance in question with relation to insurance required to be carried by each taxicab operator are examined, and held not to be so unreasonable as to be invalid.

4. A city has power to fix a license fee for one using the streets of the city for the purpose of transporting passengers for hire so high as to be prohibitive.

Appeal from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 1; Ross McCormick, Judge.

Action by the People's Taxicab Company against the City of Wichita and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Judgment reversed, with directions.

Vincent F. Hiebsch, K. W. Pringle, and Glenn Porter, all of Wichita for appellants.

C. A Matson, I. H. Stearns, and E. P. Villepigue, all of Wichita for appellee.

SMITH Justice.

This was an action brought to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance regulating the operation of taxicabs in Wichita. Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The original ordinance was passed April 18, 1932. Its provisions in brief are as follows: It requires all taxicabs to be licensed; an application shall be made for the license, giving certain information as to the owner and operator of the cab, a description of the cab, together with other information as to its size and carrying capacity. The company shall carry personal liability insurance of not less than $10,000 for injury or death to one person and $20,000 for injury or death to more than one person, and $2,000 property damage for each cab, or, in lieu thereof, a bond, and a license shall be issued for each cab, which is to be kept in the cab, which license is not transferable. The ordinance further provides for certain specifications as to advertising on the outside of the cabs, cards with rates posted on the inside of the cab, and for certain safety devices; cabs are prohibited from carrying more persons than their seating capacity, and from allowing persons to ride in the front seat with the driver. A license fee of $25 per year is required, certain maximum rates are set, and the operator of the cab is required to give receipts to passengers. The ordinance further prohibits the taking of extra passengers after the first one engaging the cab, without the consent of the passengers; prohibits cruising; regulates taxicab stands; and prohibits them from being established on certain streets where street car or bus service is furnished. The use of solicitors on the sidewalks is prohibited, and, furthermore, it is provided that, where the driver operates a cab while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, the license shall be forfeited. It provides penalties for the violation of its terms. This ordinance is referred to in the briefs as Ordinance No. 11--180.

On May 16, 1932, an ordinance was passed amending the section providing for the carrying of insurance or bonds to protect the public. The section prohibiting taxicab stands to be established on street car or bus lines was also clarified. This ordinance is referred to as No. 11--189. On December 17, 1932, the original ordinance was amended by a section which permitted either the insurance or a bond or $5,000 deposited with the city treasurer and a $35,000 bond signed by the taxicab company itself. This ordinance is referred to as No. 11--252. On the 26th of December, 1932, the ordinance was again amended by a section raising the license fee from $25 to $60 a year.

This action was then instituted. It attacks the validity of all the provisions of all the ordinances on the following grounds:

"(a) Because said Ordinance is not an exercise of a valid Police power of said City and is calculated to and attempts to and does deprive this said Plaintiff and its employees of their personal rights and liberties.

"(b) That the Board of Commissioners of the City of Wichita, Kansas, have no power, right or authority to pass said Ordinances and that same is ultra rites and void; that the provisions of said Ordinances are not necessary for the protection of the traveling public in person and property.

"(c) That the provisions of said Ordinances are not needful Police regulations and are not necessary for the preservation of good order and the peace of the said City of Wichita, and are not necessary to prevent injury to or the destruction of or interference with public or private property.

"(d) That the provisions of said Ordinances are not necessary for the protection of the health, good morals or welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Wichita.

"(e) That said Ordinances in their operation are flagrantly oppressive, unreasonable, unjust and illegal, and therefore, void.

"(f) That the people of the City of Wichita are entitled to have the service that is afforded by the Plaintiff in the operation of its taxicabs for the transportation of persons from place to place in said City.

"(g) That said Ordinances were passed by said City Commissioners without first investigating and taking into consideration the rights of this Plaintiff and its employees.

"(h) That said Ordinances deprive this plaintiff and its employees and each and all of them of its and their property and liberty without due process of law and in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the State of Kansas, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States and especially the Fourteenth Amendment thereof.

"(i) That said Ordinances deny to this Plaintiff and its employees the equal protection of the law in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the State of Kansas, and in violation of the Constitution and Laws of the United States and especially the Fourteenth Amendment thereof."

On final hearing a temporary injunction was granted enjoining the enforcement of Ordinance No. 11--180 or any amendment to it and each provision of all these ordinances.

It is from that order that this appeal is taken.

The defendant discusses the action under four heads, as follows:

"I. The plaintiff was not a proper party to attack the validity of the ordinances in question.

"II. The plaintiff by operation under and accepting the benefits of Ordinances Numbers 11--180, 11--189, and 11--252, is estopped from denying their validity.

"III. The court erred in holding Ordinances Numbers 11--180 and 11--189 invalid.

"IV. The court erred in holding Ordinances Numbers 11--252 and 11--254 invalid."

We will consider the case under those headings.

A consideration of the first question will require a further statement of facts. The plaintiff owns no taxicabs. It is a corporation organized for profit and furnishes telephone and dispatch service to the owners of taxicabs. During 1932 it furnished licenses and insurance for a number of taxicabs, as required by the ordinance, and made contracts with certain taxicab owners and drivers to use the name and telephone number of plaintiff on the taxicabs. All the taxicabs operated under the name of the plaintiff were owned by individuals, and the owners paid plaintiff the sum of $2.25 per day for the service rendered by the plaintiff during 1932.

These taxicabs operated over all the streets of Wichita twenty-four hours a day and the owners of them derived their revenue from this operation. The individual cab owners are bound to pay plaintiff $2.25 a day regardless of the earnings of that particular cab.

The argument of defendant that plaintiff is not a proper party to attack the validity of these ordinances is based on the above facts. Defendant contends that plaintiff furnishing only a service and not directly operating taxicabs can be said to be bringing this action only for the benefit of the actual owners of the taxicabs. The argument is...