Van Hoefen v. Columbia Taxicab Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1913
• Citation: 162 S.W. 694,179 Mo. App. 591
• Parties: VAN HOEFEN v. COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

162 S.W. 694

179 Mo. App. 591

VAN HOEFEN v. COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 31, 1913.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1002)—REVIEW— VERDICT.

A verdict on conflicting evidence is conclusive on appeal.

2. CARRIERS (§ 235)—COMMON CARRIERS— CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

A taxicab company following the business of transporting persons for hire from one part of the city to another, and holding itself out to carry one and all, is a common carrier of passengers, and is subject to all the liabilities of such a carrier.

3. CARRIERS (§ 283)—COMMON CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS—DUTIES.

Where a traveler enters a taxicab, which is the vehicle of a common carrier, the relation of passenger and carrier is established, and the carrier becomes bound to protect him, not only from insult and assault by outsiders but from its own servants.

4. CARRIERS (§ 283)—CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS —ASSAULT ON PASSENGER.

Where the operator of a taxicab, who was intrusted with collecting the fares, assaulted a passenger who refused to pay a higher fare than that agreed upon, and held him prisoner until the fare was finally paid, the taxicab company, being a common carrier, cannot escape liability on the ground that the acts of the operator were without the scope of his authority, for the law presumes that the company itself was acting through its servant, even though his acts were malicious.

5. CARRIERS (§ 283)—ASSAULT—CONTINUED ASSAULT.

Where the driver and another in charge of a taxicab held plaintiff, a passenger, prisoner in the cab for some time until he was finally able to force open the door and alight, and they then caught him and held him prisoner on the pavement until he was compelled to pay an excessive fare, the assault was a continued one, beginning with the imprisonment in the cab.

6. CARRIERS (§ 283)—COMMON CARRIERS— CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

Where the servant of a common carrier wrongfully imprisons a passenger while the passenger is yet in the vehicle, and after the passenger alights the attack is renewed, the law will not undertake to determine whether the assault after the passenger alighted was beyond the servant's employment, but will treat the whole matter as if it occurred while the passenger was in the vehicle.

7. CARRIERS (§ 247)—CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS —ASSAULT OF PASSENGER—AGENT.

While ordinarily the relation of carrier and passenger is ended when a carrier maintaining no station, as a street car, stops its vehicle and the passenger alights, the relation continues for a reasonable space of time in which to allow the passenger to alight in safety and remove his belongings; and hence, where the operator of a taxicab held plaintiff, a passenger, after he had forced open the door of the cab and reached the street, prisoner until he was compelled to pay an excessive fare, and refused to allow him to remove his grip from the cab, the relation of passenger and carrier existed during all that time.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.

Action by Roland Van Hoefen against the Columbia Taxicab Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Ryan & Thompson, of St. Louis, for appellant. Charles E. Morrow, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit for damages said to have accrued to plaintiff through his alleged false arrest by defendant. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

The suit proceeds as if the relation of passenger and carrier obtained between the parties at the time of the grievance complained of, and the question for consideration pertains to that subject-matter.

It appears defendant is an incorporated company engaged in the business of operating taxicabs in the city of St. Louis for the accommodation and transportation of all persons who may apply to it to convey them from one point to another. It owns, maintains, and operates about 40 such conveyances in which passengers are transported about the city for hire. Moreover, defendant maintains a number of stations at prominent points in the city from whence transportation on one of its taxicabs may be had or where one may be called into the service of a passenger. One of such stations is maintained by defendant at the Planters Hotel, and it was from this one that defendant undertook to transport plaintiff to his home at No. 858 McLaran avenue, St. Louis. It appears plaintiff visited this station and inquired of defendant's chauffeur the fare to be paid for his carriage in a taxicab from that point to his home at the number above mentioned. The chauffeur in charge of the taxicab referred plaintiff to defendant's superintendent, who was stationed there in an office, for the information desired. Defendant's superintendent consulted the book, and, besides remarking that the destination desired was 8400 north, stated the fare would be $3.70. Plaintiff accepted the proffer thus made and entered the cab for transportation. Besides the regular chauffeur on the taxicab another man in uniform as a taxicab driver accompanied the chauffeur and rode on the seat with him. It is suggested by plaintiff that this extra man on the seat accompanied the chauffeur as a guard against impending assault from striking taxicab drivers, but this we regard as wholly immaterial to the issue made. At any rate, after having thus taken passage in defendant's conveyance, plaintiff was transported therein to within about a block from his residence, when it is said the taxicab became stalled or refused to proceed for some reason unknown to him. Thereupon plaintiff said to the chauffeur that he would pay his fare and walk from thence homeward, as it was but a short distance, and to this the chauffeur acceded. According to the evidence of plaintiff, he took from his pocket $3.70 while yet sitting in the taxicab and laid it on the seat on the box beside the chauffeur in settlement of the charge for transportation. The chauffeur did not accept the amount thus tendered, but looked at and read the meter on the conveyance and demanded $5 for his transportation, saying such was the amount the meter registered as due in accordance with the miles traveled. Plaintiff insisted that he had contracted in the presence of the chauffeur with defendant's superintendent for transportation home at the price of $3.70 and that this was all he would pay. Whereupon it is said both defendant's chauffeur, whom the evidence shows to be authorized to collect fares for defendant, and his companion took hold of the door on either side of the taxicab and imprisoned plaintiff therein, demanding that he should pay $5 instead of $3.70. It is said the two men, one stationed at either side of the cab, restrained plaintiff of his liberty, and confined him therein for about one minute, and rudely demanded that he should pay the $5 so registered by the meter. After being thus restrained for about one minute, plaintiff says he opened the door of the taxicab and stepped out of the same upon the ground in the street, where defendant's chauffeur and his companion laid hold of him and restrained him for a considerable time, insisting that he should pay the $5 demanded. Both the chauffeur and his companion, according to plaintiff's story, treated plaintiff rudely while thus standing beside the cab, held him fast by the arms, cursed and abused him, and threatened to call a policeman. A considerable time was occupied in the argument while the parties stood beside the conveyance in the street, and plaintiff's grip, or hand bag, remained therein and a large number of people assembled there to view and witness the controversy. Plaintiff insisted that he owed but $3.70, and this he repeatedly offered to pay, while defendant's chauffeur insisted he should pay the $5 charge and presently the chauffeur added an additional 20 cents for waiting time, and then demanded $5.20 instead of $5 as before. When about 10 minutes had elapsed and the controversy still continued, defendant's chauffeur repaired to a nearby police station, leaving plaintiff in the meantime in charge of his companion, and enlisted the services of a policeman to enforce the payment of the $5 charge. Probably 20 minutes thereafter the policeman arrived with defendant's chauffeur, and insisted that plaintiff should pay the amount charged by the chauffeur or accompany him to the station. Plaintiff declined to pay the bill, and repeatedly tendered $3.70 instead. It is said the chauffeur insisted upon the policeman arresting plaintiff, and he did so. By this time a large number of the residents of the neighborhood had assembled at the scene, and among them plaintiff's father and his sister. Plaintiff's father offered to pay the charge of $5.20, but plaintiff refused to permit him to do so, and stated that he had contracted with defendant for conveyance home for $3.70. Whereupon the chauffeur's companion and the police officer in charge of plaintiff, together with plaintiff's father and sister, all repaired to plaintiff's home a block away and entered the residence. Here it is said plaintiff's father paid the charge demanded by the chauffeur, and the chauffeur's companion and the police officer departed.

The evidence on behalf of defendant is in many respects about the same as that for plaintiff. The principal discrepancy in the evidence on behalf of defendant and that for plaintiff pertains to the matter of the restraint laid upon plaintiff at the initiation of the controversy. Defendant's chauffeur and his companion deny that they restrained plaintiff of his liberty within the taxicab by holding the door on either side and preventing him from alighting therefrom. However, they admit the controversy which ensued in the public street by the side of the car over the collection of the fare, but say they did not lay hands on plaintiff there. But it is admitted, too, by defendant's chauffeur on the stand that he called the policeman and invoked his aid in collecting the fare, and that his...