Taxis And Workers' Compensation

Sarasota, FL (CompNewsNetwork) - I drove a taxi when I lived in New York City. I thought it was a fast way to make some serious money, and I did. I owned a NYC yellow cab "medallion" back in the mid 80's. It was valued at about $125,000 at the time that I sold it in 1991. Today, the price of an individual NYC taxi medallion is about $588,000. It was my first experience in owning and running a business. I got to meet many interesting people and celebrities. Unlike the stereo-typical surly character or turban wearing immigrant portrayed by the media, many drivers actually speak excellent English. Check out “Cash Cab” on the Discovery Channel sometime!

Although it can sometimes be an exciting and fast-paced job, it is also a very dangerous one. I was fortunate enough not to get robbed, injured or murdered during the 9 years I drove a taxi. But many others may not have been so fortunate. In most states, taxi drivers are usually covered by workers' compensation insurance if they work or lease from a fleet corporation. There have been some unusual court opinions involving the taxi industry. We thought we'd hail a few cabs from our WorkCompResearch.com case law library.

Alam v. Taxi Wheels to Lease Inc., Supreme Court, Kings County, (2007) New York, Slip Op 51377(U).
Defendant Taxi Wheels is an entity licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to manage taxi medallions, and was the managing agent of the taxicab operated by plaintiff and its title owner. Defendant Matilda Prempeh was the owner of the medallion affixed to the taxicab which is the subject of this action. The subject accident in this personal injury action occurred on December 9, 2002, at approximately 11:45 pm. Plaintiff alleges that on that day he was driving the taxicab with a passenger in the back. The passenger alerted plaintiff to a loud noise which was coming from the back of the vehicle, near where he was sitting, and asked plaintiff to stop the vehicle. Plaintiff stopped the vehicle and his passenger got out, and fled the scene. Plaintiff opened his door, and was exiting the vehicle, when the left rear (driver's side) tire exploded, knocked him to the ground and blinded him. Subsequent to the occurrence of the subject accident, plaintiff applied for and received Workers' Compensation benefits in connection with the injuries he sustained in the accident. Plaintiff's claim was for injuries to his head, neck, left shoulder and both eyes, for loss of vision.
Taxi Wheels contends that it can not be found liable under a theory of products liability because Taxi Wheels did not manufacture, sell or distribute either the taxicab or the tire that exploded. Taxi Wheels also contends that it can not be found liable under a theory of negligence because Taxi Wheels had no duty to maintain the taxicab or its tires, and could not have known of any defect in the tire which exploded. The court ordered that the defendant Taxi Wheels' motion to dismiss granted.

Herman Davila v. Yellow Cab Co,. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, (2002) Illinois, No. 1-01-4366.
In a first amended complaint, Davila alleged he was struck and injured by a taxicab owned by Yellow Cab and negligently operated by defendant Thomas Williams on October 31, 1996, in the vicinity of the intersection of LaSalle and Lake Streets in Chicago. Davila alleged that he was a State of Illinois police officer standing onLake Street due to traffic congestion when he was struck by Williams' cab and dragged for several feet. Davila also alleged the incident caused him severe and permanent bodily injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of his usual occupation. Davila complained that Yellow Cab was responsible for his damages due to a principal/agent or master/servant relationship with Williams. In a separate count, which was dismissed and is not subject to this appeal, Davila alleged that Yellow Cab had negligently entrusted Williams with the taxicab. Yellow Cab answered and moved for summary judgment, contending that its written contract with Williams established he was an independent contractor and that Williams' conviction for battery, an intentional crime, in connection with the incident at Lake and LaSalle Streets established Williams was not acting within the scope of any agency or employment relationship. Yellow Cab concluded it was therefore not responsible for Williams' actions. The court concluded that despite the lease agreement's employment relationship disclaimer, the record clearly indicated that Yellow Cab's interest in its cabs did not cease with their leasing, but extended to their operation. and that Yellow Cab was in the business of operating a fleet a cabs for public use. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the cab driver was an employee of Yellow Cab.