Rhone v. Try Me Cab Co.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 5658.,5658.
• Parties: RHONE v. TRY ME CAB CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

62 App. DC 201, 65 F.2d 834 (1933)

RHONE v. TRY ME CAB CO. et al.

No. 5658.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued February 15, 1933.

Decided May 29, 1933.

William H. Hastie and Nathan A. Dobbins, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

George E. C. Hayes, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and HITZ, Associate Justices.

HITZ, Associate Justice.

This case comes here by writ of error to the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia and presents a question of some public importance touching the operation of taxicabs in Washington, under the present system of control, or the lack of it.

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, was a passenger in a taxicab and claims to have been injured by negligence of its driver.

The declaration names as defendants Williams, the driver; Jackson, registered as owner of the cab; and the Try Me Cab Company, a corporation, applicant for registration of the cab and whose name it bore on the occasion in question.

No process was served upon Williams, and the action was abandoned as to him, though he appeared as a witness for the defense at the trial.

The declaration was in familiar form, claiming damages from the cab company and Jackson, or either of them, as owners or operators of the cab for the personal injuries caused by negligence of the driver alleged to be the servant or agent of the owners or operators.

The two defendants by their pleas denied liability for the driver, asserting that he was an independent contractor with the passenger, and in sole control of the cab at the time of the alleged accident.

The plea of the cab company further denied that it is engaged in carrying passengers for hire; that it ever received the plaintiff as a passenger; that it owns this cab, or any other cab; or that it exercised any control or management of the cab at the time in question.

Jackson's plea admitted ownership of the cab, but asserted that he had no liability therefor at the time of the accident because of a contractual arrangement between himself and Williams, the driver, by which he received a daily compensation for the cab, of which Williams had full control.

No question was raised against the pleadings; the case was tried on the merits; and at the conclusion of all the evidence the defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was granted; and the main question presented here concerns the correctness of that ruling.

The bill of exceptions states that there was testimony regarding negligence of the driver and resulting injury to the plaintiff sufficient to raise substantial questions for the jury on those issues, but that the case was decided on the legal relations of the parties as disclosed by the evidence.

The plaintiff testified that prior to the occurrence a printed card had been left at her door advertising the Try Me Cab Company; that she had read other advertisements in the telephone directory reading: "Metropolitan, 1911 — Try Me Cab Company — A careful and courteous service. Special rates by the hour, day, or week. We go anywhere — reliable chauffeurs. Try Me Cab Company, Metropolitan, 1911." Being induced by these advertisements, she telephoned to the cab company at its advertised office, asking for a cab; that in response a cab was sent to her house marked "Try Me Cab Company," and that she embarked in it, to her injury.

Another witness testified to knowledge of these facts, saying that the cab was marked "Try Me Cab Company, Number 7."

An agent of the director of traffic testified that the official records showed 106 cabs registered under applications of the Try Me Cab Company; that such applications were not required to be made by the owner; that the record relating to the cab in question shows in the space for applicant "Try Me Cab Company." In the space for the signature of the owner appears in typewriting "Try Me Cab Company," in handwriting "Walter Jackson."

The vice president of the cab company testified that it is a nonprofit-sharing corporation, incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia for the purpose of furnishing its members a telephone service and the advantages offered by use of the corporate name, while the company did not own this cab or any other cab. The defendant Jackson testified that he owned the cab; that he had licensed and registered it as a taxicab; that the name of Try Me Cab Company had been placed on the record because of an inquiry at the license office as to the name of the company in which it was to be used; that he had personally operated the cab until he became ill shortly before the accident, he collecting and retaining all earnings without accounting to the company.

Jackson further testified that, at the time of the accident, he had rented the car to Williams, the driver, for $3.50 per day; that Williams was operating the car under this arrangement on the occasion of the accident, but also under the taxicab permit issued to Jackson, paying the daily rental, exercising full control, and retaining all receipts with no accounting to the company or to him.

Williams corroborated Jackson in all matters, admitting that he was driving at the time of the accident and in full charge of the cab.

The counsel stipulated that the advertisements mentioned by the...