Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois

• Decision Date: 20 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1-91-2340WC,1-91-2340WC
• Citation: 179 Ill.Dec. 691,606 N.E.2d 523,238 Ill.App.3d 650
• Parties: , 179 Ill.Dec. 691 YELLOW CAB COMPANY, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, and Jeanette Janvier, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Kosner and Kettya, Minor Children, and Maud Corielan, Mother and Natural Guardian of Jean Kester Janvier, and Marie Florise Janvier, Minor Children, and Madeline Francois, Mother and Natural Guardian of Jean Petruche Janvier, Minor Child, Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 523

606 N.E.2d 523

238 Ill.App.3d 650, 179 Ill.Dec. 691

YELLOW CAB COMPANY, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, and Jeanette Janvier,

Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Kosner

and Kettya, Minor Children, and Maud Corielan, Mother and

Natural Guardian of Jean Kester Janvier, and Marie Florise

Janvier, Minor Children, and Madeline Francois, Mother and

Natural Guardian of Jean Petruche Janvier, Minor Child, Appellees.

No. 1-91-2340WC.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Industrial

Commission Division.

Nov. 20, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1993.

Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago (Richard L. Marcus, Deborah M. Neyens, of counsel), for appellant.

Laks and Forman, Chicago (Perry M. Laks, of counsel), Norman Matthew, for appellees.

Justice RAKOWSKI delivered the opinion of the court:

The employer, Yellow Cab Company, appeals the circuit court's confirmation of an Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission) decision which held that the decedent Jean K. Janvier (hereinafter referred to as "claimant") was the employer's employee, and accordingly, awarded benefits to claimant's dependents. We affirm.

The pertinent facts are as follows. Claimant drove a taxicab for two and one-half years prior to his death on September 10, 1987. Claimant's widow, Jeanette Janvier, testified that claimant drove a cab seven days a week, from about 7 a.m. to 10 or 10:30 p.m. He drove the same cab every day, which he parked in front of their residence. At times, claimant used the cab for personal errands, such as driving her to work or driving to the babysitter's.

Claimant had possession of the vehicle through a lease arrangement with the employer. The lease, which was entered into evidence, included an option to purchase the vehicle (although not the meter and medallion affixed thereto). Additionally, claimant and the employer entered into daily leases. The daily lease form, also entered into evidence, provided that the parties did not have an employer-employee relationship, and that the employer did not have the right to control or supervise claimant in the use of the vehicle. Further, the daily lease provided that claimant did not have to use the vehicle for a determined period of time or in a given geographical area, that claimant did not receive compensation directly from the employer, and that claimant was not required to report his earnings from the use of the vehicle. Gasoline and regular operating and maintenance expenses were claimant's responsibility under the lease.

However, the lease did provide that during the term of the lease, claimant was required to keep the cab and meter in safe and satisfactory repair and running condition, to allow the employer to install and maintain advertising signs, and to allow the employer to inspect the vehicle. Claimant was not allowed to let anyone drive the vehicle other than a sub-lessee which the employer authorized. Nor was claimant allowed to make any changes in the body of the vehicle, except for replacements of original parts. The employer insured claimant for liability damages and reserved the right to terminate the lease if claimant violated any of the terms of the lease.

On September 10, 1987, claimant was fatally shot while in his taxicab. Police investigation revealed that claimant was the victim of a robbery.

The sole issue presented is whether the Commission's determination that claimant was an employee of the employer for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) (the Act) was erroneous. This issue has been addressed, albeit under slightly differing factual scenarios, by the courts of this State on several occasions. See Globe Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 86 Ill.2d 354, 55 Ill.Dec. 928, 427 N.E.2d 48; Morgan Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1975), 60 Ill.2d 92, 324 N.E.2d 425; Penny Cab Company v. Industrial Comm'n (1975), 60 Ill.2d 217, 326 N.E.2d 393 and Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1984), 124 Ill.App.3d 644, 80 Ill.Dec. 96, 464 N.E.2d 1079.

Initially, we note that the lease agreement expressly disclaims an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Such a disclaimer was also present in Globe and Yellow Cab, and those courts affirmed Commission decisions holding that the claimants were employees nonetheless. Such a disclaimer "is not dispositive of the claimant's status under the Act" (Yellow Cab, 124 Ill.App.3d at 647, 80 Ill.Dec. 96, 464 N.E.2d 1079), and we must look to other factors, and the actual relationship of the parties to resolve the issue.

In Morgan, the court observed the following with respect to the determination of whether a cab driver is an employee or an independent contractor:

"No one factor may determine what relationship is between parties in a given case. It may be necessary to consider a number of factors with evidentiary value, such as the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required in the work to be done, and who provides the tools, material, or equipment. Of these factors the right to control the manner in which the work is done is the most important in determining the relationship." 60 Ill.2d at 97-98, 324 N.E.2d 425.

In the present case, while the employer did not pay claimant on a regular basis from its own coiffeurs, it had a right akin to discharge, in that the lease provides that the employer could terminate it with or without cause. The skill level of driving a cab is less than expert and unusual, which favors the finding of an employer/employee relationship. Further, the employer provided the tools necessary to the work--the vehicle, medallion and meter.

In resolving the control factor, courts in taxicab cases have been heavily influenced by: (1) whether the driver accepted radio calls from the company; (2) whether the driver had his radio and cab repaired by the company; (3) whether the vehicles were painted alike with the name of the company and its phone number on the vehicle; and (4) whether the company could refuse the driver a cab. (See Morgan, 60 Ill.2d 92, 324 N.E.2d 425; Penny, 60 Ill.2d 217, 326 N.E.2d 393.) The courts are also influenced by control over work shifts and assignments, requirements that gasoline be purchased from the company garage, repair and tow service that is supplied by the company for the vehicle, requirements that drivers be courteous to customers, and the right to discharge the driver or cancel the lease. (See Globe, 86 Ill.2d 354, 55 Ill.Dec. 928, 427 N.E.2d 48; Yellow Cab, 124 Ill.App.3d 644, 80 Ill.Dec. 96, 464 N.E.2d 1079). Additionally, the Yellow Cab court was influenced by the fact that the claimant could not sublease the cab, and that company roadmen filled out reports about the cab's condition. (Yellow Cab, 124 Ill.App.3d at 647, 80 Ill.Dec. 96, 464 N.E.2d 1079.) An important consideration of these courts was resolution of the question of whether the cab company was "in the business of operating a fleet of cabs for public use" or "in the business of simply leasing vehicles with no interest in their operation as taxis." (Morgan, 60 Ill.2d at 101, 324 N.E.2d 425; Globe, 86 Ill.2d at 362-63, 55 Ill.Dec. 928, 427 N.E.2d 48.) See also Yellow Cab, 124 Ill.2d at 647, 80 Ill.Dec. 96, 464 N.E.2d 1079.

In the case sub judice, the employer, noting that some of the factors present in the above cases are not present here, argues that the Commission was in error to determine that claimant was an employee. The employer argues that no consideration flowed to the employee, as is necessary in an employment relationship. According to the employer, claimant was not even an independent contractor, but was a mere lessee, as one who rents a vehicle from such well...