SHEIK HAMID AND NISA HAMID, APPELLANTS,
v.
METRO LIMO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A METRO TAXI AND METRO TAXI, INC., WILLIAM M. YOUNG, PEARL GALE, HOWARD GALE, SIGMUND ZILBER AND PERCY IRANI, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that holders of a for-hire taxicab license are liable for their drivers' negligence despite not directly employing or controlling the drivers. The trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the license holders was reversed because the privilege to operate a common carrier carries inherent responsibility for safe operations.
The holder of a for-hire taxicab license is liable for the driver's negligence. The grant of a for-hire license carries with it the responsibility to ensure the cab operation is carried out in a non-negligent manner, and the license holder cannot escape liability through the arrangement of who operates the vehicle.
[1] A holder of a for-hire license for a taxicab may be held liable for the driver's negligence.
[2] The right to operate a common carrier is a privilege granted by a governmental entity, not an inherent right.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A taxicab is a common carrier.”
Establishes the fundamental nature of the taxicab business and triggers common carrier liability principles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheik Hamid was seriously injured when his car was struck by a taxicab that ran a stop sign. Hamid sued Howard and Pearl Gale, who held the for-hire l…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Carrier Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
[*322] FERGUSON, Judge.
The issue presented is whether the holder of a for-hire license on a taxicab may be held liable for the driver’s negligence. The trial court answered the question in the negative, granting summary judgment in favor of the license holder. We reverse.
Hamid was seriously injured when his car was struck by a taxicab which ran a stop sign. Hamid sued, among others, Howard and Pearl Gale, holders of the for-hire license under which the cab was operating. Summary judgment was granted on the ground that the Gales’ holding of the license was not a sufficient basis on which to impose liability. We disagree for the following reasons.
A taxicab is a common carrier. Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 478 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1985); Ace Cab Co. v. Garcia, 140 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 146 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1962); New Deal Cab Co. v. Meyer, 139 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). The right to operate common carriers is not an inherent right, but a mere privilege. Hartman Transp. Inc. v. Bevis, 293 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1974); Riley v. Lawson, 106 Fla. 521, 143 So. 619 (1932). The privilege can be acquired only by permit, license, or franchise emanating from the governmental unit. City of Miami v. South Miami Coach Lines, Inc., 59 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1952); Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776, 167 So. 664 (Fla.1936).
Dade County controls the granting of this privilege through the issuance of for-hire licenses. Chapter 31 of the Dade County Code imposes numerous conditions on the issuance of such a license. See, e.g., §§ 31-81, 82, 88 Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Generally, when an activity can be performed only pursuant to a license or franchise granted by a governmental entity, the licensee or franchisee remains responsible for the performance of the activity — no matter who actually performs it. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 428 (1965); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214 cmt.b. (1958).
This principle of law applies to common carriers.
A common carrier of passengers cannot, without specific legislative authority, relieve itself from liability for violation of a contract or its general duty to the public, or for torts, by means of a lease or other contract for the operation of its facilities by another company.
The grant of the for-hire license carries with it the responsibility to see that the cab operation is carried out in a non-negligent manner. Accordingly, the Gales, as license holders, are liable for the driver’s negligence. See, e.g., Paige v. Red Top, Inc., 106 N.J.Super. 254, 255 A. 2d 279 (NJ.Super.) (The right to operate a taxicab is a special privilege, a franchise. A franchise holder may not avoid liability for the negligence of person to whom he grants permission to use that franchise.), cert. denied, 54 N.J. 115, 257 A. 2d 113 (N.J.1969). Summary judgment is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metrolimo, Inc. v. Lamm, 666 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…s could not, by subcontracting, exonerate themselves from liability. See Fisherman’s Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield, 417 So. 2d 306, 307-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Campbell v. Bellman, 293 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Hamid v. Metro Limo, Inc., 619 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (liability of licensee or franchisee). The joint venture and joint venture partners are liable for the negligent acts of the driver. Metrolimo next argues that there was an error in the jury instructions in this case. Over defend…
-
NME Props., Inc. v. Rudich, 840 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…tivity can be performed only pursuant to a license or franchise granted by a governmental entity, the licensee or franchisee remains responsible for the performance of the activity — no matter who actually performs it. See Hamid v. Metro Limo, Inc., 619 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Irving, an action was brought involving the liability of a hospital for the alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment by an emergency room physician that resulted in serious injury. The critical issue at hand was whether…
-
Gulf Coast Transp., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. & State of Fla., 352 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…perty interest in their licenses to engage in pari-mutuel dog racing." (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). It is well-established that permits and licenses to operate taxicabs are privileges created by the government. Hamid v. Metro Limo, Inc., 619 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("A taxicab is a common carrier. The right to operate common carriers is not an inherent right, but a mere privilege. The privilege can be acquired only by permit, license, or franchise emanating from the governmental unit.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Riley v. Lawson, 106 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1932)
- Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776 (Fla. 1936)
- NEW Deal CAB Co. v. Meyer, 139 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Pringle v. State, 123 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1936)
- City of Miami v. South Miami Coach Lines, 59 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1952)
- Hartman Transp., Inc. v. Bevis, 293 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1974)
- ACE CAB Co. v. Garcia, 140 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Stemmler v. Moon Jewelry Co., 146 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1962)
- Davey v. Allen, 146 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1962)