Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams

85 S.E.2d 451, 91 Ga. App. 220, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 897

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1954

Docket35249

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 85 S.E.2d 451 (Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams, 85 S.E.2d 451, 91 Ga. App. 220, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J.

This is an appeal from a workmen’s compensation case, in which the plaintiff in error states that the sole question before this court is whether the relationship of employer and employee existed between the Diamond Cab Company and the deceased taxicab driver.

“Individuals do not have the inherent right to conduct their private businesses in the streets of a city. A city can prohibit the owners or operators of taxicabs and buses from transporting *221 passengers for hire in such vehicles upon the streets of the city. The transportation of passengers for hire in such vehicles or otherwise is a privilege which the municipality can grant or withhold. As the owners or operators of taxicabs or jitney-buses have no right to transport passengers for hire on the streets of the city, and as the city can prohibit wholly or partially the conduct of such business in its streets, if the city sees fit to grant permission to individuals to conduct such business in its streets it can prescribe such terms and conditions as it may see fit, and individuals desiring to avail themselves of such permission must comply with such terms and conditions, whether they are reasonable or unreasonable. Schlesinger v. Atlanta, 161 Ga. 148 (129 S. E. 861).” Clem v. City of LaGrange, 169 Ga. 51 (4) (149 S. E. 638, 65 A. L. R. 1361).

The Diamond Cab Company, having obtained a permit to operate taxicabs upon the streets of Atlanta, was bound to operate taxicabs in compliance with that city’s regulatory ordinances, including an ordinance that no taxicabs “shall be operated by any person other than the owner, or his duly licensed employee,” and cannot delegate its duties as an operating company to its drivers, by an arrangement of leasing its taxicabs to drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees, in order to avoid liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for death or injury to its drivers. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Prather, 59 Ga. App. 797 (2 S. E. 2d 115).

No such regulatory municipal ordinance was involved in the case of Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Windham, 209 Ga. 592 (74 S. E. 2d 835), which is not controlling for this reason although otherwise similar in its facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nichols, J.

This is an appeal from a workmen’s compensation case, in which the plaintiff in error states that the sole question before this court is whether the relationship of employer and employee existed between the Diamond Cab Company and the deceased taxicab driver.

“Individuals do not have the inherent right to conduct their private businesses in the streets of a city. A city can prohibit the owners or operators of taxicabs and buses from transporting *221 passengers for hire in such vehicles upon the streets of the city. The transportation of passengers for hire in such vehicles or otherwise is a privilege which the municipality can grant or withhold. As the owners or operators of taxicabs or jitney-buses have no right to transport passengers for hire on the streets of the city, and as the city can prohibit wholly or partially the conduct of such business in its streets, if the city sees fit to grant permission to individuals to conduct such business in its streets it can prescribe such terms and conditions as it may see fit, and individuals desiring to avail themselves of such permission must comply with such terms and conditions, whether they are reasonable or unreasonable. Schlesinger v. Atlanta, 161 Ga. 148 (129 S. E. 861).” Clem v. City of LaGrange, 169 Ga. 51 (4) (149 S. E. 638, 65 A. L. R. 1361).

The Diamond Cab Company, having obtained a permit to operate taxicabs upon the streets of Atlanta, was bound to operate taxicabs in compliance with that city’s regulatory ordinances, including an ordinance that no taxicabs “shall be operated by any person other than the owner, or his duly licensed employee,” and cannot delegate its duties as an operating company to its drivers, by an arrangement of leasing its taxicabs to drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees, in order to avoid liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for death or injury to its drivers. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Prather, 59 Ga. App. 797 (2 S. E. 2d 115).

No such regulatory municipal ordinance was involved in the case of Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Windham, 209 Ga. 592 (74 S. E. 2d 835), which is not controlling for this reason although otherwise similar in its facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E.2d 451, 91 Ga. App. 220, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-cab-co-v-adams-gactapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack