Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co.
Citation | 146 Ga.App. 748,247 S.E.2d 569 |
Decision Date | 14 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 55786,55786 |
Parties | WORRELL v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bruce D. Duncan, Atlanta, for appellant.
W. Edmond Waters, Atlanta, for appellee.
The sole issue in this case is whether appellant was an employee of the appellee or was an independent contractor.
Appellant, a taxicab driver, was injured in an automobile collision while responding to a call from the taxicab dispatcher. She sought workmen's compensation benefits from the taxicab company whose vehicle she was driving and from related business entities. The appellee contended that appellant was not eligible for workmen's compensation benefits because she was an independent contractor who leased a vehicle and could not, therefore, be an employee.
At the hearing, appellant introduced into evidence certified copies of certain ordinances of the City of Atlanta. One of the ordinances pertaining to the operation of taxicabs provides as follows: "No vehicle provided for under the provisions of this article shall be operated by any person other than the owner or his duly authorized employee or agent." Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta, 1965, § 34-49. (The same provision appears as § 14-8069 of the 1977 Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta.) The administrative law judge denied compensation and her ruling was affirmed by the full board with one dissent. The superior court affirmed the decision.
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, Diamond Cab Co., supra, 91 Ga.App. p. 221, 85 S.E.2d p. 452.
2. Appellee argues that the cases cited above were decided under a different ordinance than the one involved in the present case. It is true that there is a slight difference between the old and new ordinances: the latter has the words "or agent" added to the end of the sentence. We find that appellee is asserting a distinction without a difference insofar as it applies to this case. The ordinance still does not permit licensed taxicab companies to escape liability by allowing independent contractors to operate the vehicles.
3. Appellees based their defense on Fidelity etc., Co. of N. Y....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...v. Laramie Cabs (Wyo.1985) 700 P.2d 399.)Another court has reached the same result on a narrower ground. (See Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co. (1978) 146 Ga.App. 748, 247 S.E.2d 569, appeal after remand Yellow Cab Co. v. Worrell (1980) 155 Ga.App. 41, 273 S.E.2d 410 [where ordinance restricted ope......
-
Rapid Group, Inc. v. Yellow Cab of Columbus, A01A1363.
... ... We note that Loudermilk Enterprises, which involved a City of Atlanta taxicab company, did not address the application of the city ordinance. It may well have been that the ordinance was not raised, but we note that Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co., 146 Ga.App. 748, 247 S.E.2d 569 (1978), a case involving the Atlanta City Code, held that taxicabs shall not be operated by any person other than the owner or his employee. Under the Karwoski dissent the cabdriver could be an independent contractor for workers' compensation ... ...
-
Yellow Cab of Chatham County, Inc. v. Karwoski, A96A2091
...driving a taxicab for Yellow Cab of Chatham County, Inc. (Yellow Cab). Relying upon this Court's decision in Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co., 146 Ga.App. 748, 247 S.E.2d 569 (1978), the cases cited therein, and certain provisions of the Savannah City Code, the administrative law judge found that ......
-
Atlanta Checker Cab Co. v. Padgett
...time of this employee's death despite all efforts to establish an independent contractor relationship, citing Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co., 146 Ga.App. 748, 749(1), 247 S.E.2d 569, and Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams, 91 Ga.App. 220, 85 S.E.2d The administrative law judge and the board then found the......