Stewart Taxi-Service Co. v. Spencer

⁶³⁷ Adkihs, J., delivered the opinion, of the Court. In this case there are two appeals in one record. The > declaration is as follows: “Minnie M. Spencer, plaintiff, "by Harold T'schndi and William D. Macmillan, her attorneys, sues the Baltimore Steam Packet Company, a body corporate, the Stewart Taxi Service Company, a body corporate, and J. P. Bnrton. “Por that at the time of the happening of the accident hereinafter referred to the Baltimore Steam Packet Company, one of the defendants herein, was a common carrier for hire of passengers and as such owned and operated a transportation line; that on or about December 24, 1928, the plaintiff purchased from the said Baltimore Steam Packet Company a ticket for one continuous passage from Norfolk, Virginia, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that on that date the plaintiff became a passenger on said transportation line owned and operated by the said Baltimore Steam Packet Company whereupon it became the duty of this defendant to exercise the utmost care and diligence to avoid injury to the plaintiff herein during the said passage from Norfolk to Philadelphia; that when the plaintiff arrived at the wharf in Baltimore, to wit, on the morning of December 25th, 1923, this defendant, the Baltimore Steam Packet Company, carried out its aforesaid undertaking to provide transportation of the plaintiff from Norfolk to Philadelphia, and the plaintiff thereupon became a passenger in a taxicab owned by the Stewart Taxi Service Company, a hody corporate, also one of the defendants herein, which defendant, was then and is now engaged in the business of carrying- persons, for hire, by mean’s of taxicabs; that while the plaintiff herein was a passenger in said taxicab provided by the Baltimore Steam Packet Company and owned by the Stewart Taxi Service Company, and operated by their agent, it became the duty of these defendants to exercise the utmost care and diligence to avoid injury to the plaintiff herein while ■she was thus a passenger in said taxicab, which taxi ⁶³⁸ cab was to carry this plaintiff from the wharf at Baltimore to Union Station, and all of which was in accordance with the undertaking of the Baltimore Steam Packet Company in providing transportation of the plaintiff from Norfolk to Philadelphia; that while the plaintiff was riding in said taxicab as a passenger, as aforesaid, en route to Union Station, a collision occurred between this taxicab and an automobile operated by J. F. Burton, also one of the defendants herein, which collision occurred at the corner of St. Paul Street and Mount Royal Avenue, a public highway of the State of Maryland, by reason of the-wrongful and negligent acts on the part of the defendants herein, their agents and servants in the premises,, in that the driver of said taxicab and the said J. F.. Burton negligently, carelessly and unskillfully managed, operated and controlled the taxicab and automobile which they were driving, respectively, and that as a result of said collision the taxicab in which the-plaintiff was riding was overturned and the plaintiff was violently thrown about the said cab as a result of which she sustained very serious and permanent injuries about her head, body and limbs and was. caused to suffer'and will continue to suffer great physical pain and mental anguish, all of which occurred' through the negligence of the defendants herein, their'agents and servants in the premises, in the operation, of said vehicles and without any negligence whatsoever on the part of the plaintiff thereunto contributing. “And the plaintiff claims Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).” The Baltimore Steam Packet Company, appellant in No;. 97, demurred .to 'the declaration, and the demurrer having: been overruled, pleaded the general issue plea.

The Stewart Taxi-Service Company, appellant in No-. 96, also' pleaded' the general issue plea. The jury rendered a verdict against" the said appellants and against another defendant, J. E., Burton. From the judgment on that verdict separate appeals were taken by the appellants. Burton did not appeal..

The single bill of exception is to the ruling of the trial court., on the prayers. ⁶³⁹ Iii the view we take of this case it will be unnecessary to pass on the Steam Packet Company’s demurrer. The evidence showed the purchase by appellee at the Steam Packet Company’s office in Norfolk of a “continuous” ticket from Norfolk to Philadelphia in three coupons, as follows: “PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NO. 1. Issued By Baltimoke Steam Packet Co. (Old Bay Line). Non-Transferable Ticket Sold Subject to Tariff Regulations When Officially Stamped good foe ONE CONTINUOUS PASSAGE to destination shown hereon, which must he reached not later than midnight of date punched in margin.

In selling this ticket and checking baggage hereon, this company acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own line. R. L. Jones, General Passenger Agent. Baltimobe, Md. Pennsylvania R. R. (Via Short Line) If One-Half Punch Here BALTIMORE TO PHILADELPHIA, PA.

(Destination) Form P-102 Via BSPOo. Tr P Punch Here I On the face of said exhibit there had been punched “Dec. •26, 1923,” and on the back of said Exhibit No. 1 the following was stamped: Consolidated Dec. 24-23 Ticket Office Norfolk, Va. 9 ⁶⁴⁰ PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT NO. 2. If One-Half * Punch Here Transfer-Baltimore One Passenger and Ordinary From Baltimore Steam Packet Baggage Co.’s Pier TO Pennsylvania Railroad Station Form P-102 Not Good If Detached Destination 8221Í Philadelphia, Pa. Issued by Baltimore Steam Packet Co. ViaBSPOo.

Tr P Punch Here On the bade of said Exhibit No. 2 the following was stamped: Consolidated Dec.. 24-23 Ticket Office Norfolk, Va. 9 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NO. 3. If One-Half * Punch Here Baltimore Steam Packet Co. Station Stamped on Back To Baltimore .Form P-102 Not Good If Detached. Destination PHILADELPHIA, PA. {Issued by Baltimore Steam Packet Co. Via BSPCo. Tr P_ Punch Here On the back of said Exhibit No. 3 the following was stamped: Consolidated Dec. 24-23 Ticket Office Norfolk, Va. 9 ⁶⁴¹ The evidence further shows: That on arriving at the Steam Packet Company’s wharf in Baltimore the porter carried the hags of appellee and several of her friends down the steps to a platform “and the man that calls out and gets you a cab' be asked us where we were going1 and we told him we were going to the Pennsylvania Station and he said, Must a: minute and 1 will get you a cab,’ and he got ns a cab and we got in and be took the ticket off” (the ticket referred to being the coupon marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit Xo. 2, Exhibit 3 having been previously detached on the boat); that the man who approached her and got the cab1 for her was in uniform like the driver of the cab; that the cab was a Stewart cab.

The declaration alleges that the Stewart Taxi-Service Company is a body corporate; that it was engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire by means of taxicabs, and that the cab in which plaintiff was riding was owned by the company and was operated by the agent of the company; and the evidence shows that the cabs regularly met the boat and transferred passengers to Union Station, having a regular employee at the wharf who acts as master; that the coupons collected by the drivers or starter are turned in at the office of the taxi-service company. There is not a particle of evidence that there was a contract between the Steam Packet Company and the appellee whereby said last-mentioned company assumed any obligation to her for her safe passage beyond its own line; on the contrary, the ticket itself expressly provides “that in selling this ticket and checking1 baggage hereon, this company acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own line.” The words at the bottom of Exhibit Xo. 2, the transfer coupon, “Via B. S. P. Co. Tr. P.” loses any special significance because the same words are at the bottom of each of the coupons or sections and apparently indicate that the route at its beginning is by way of the Steam Packet Company. ⁶⁴² Nor is there any evidence of any partnership' arrangement or a “single system,” referred to in Pugh v. Washington Ry. & Elec. Co., 134 Md. 196 , and in 5 R. C. L. 155, sec. 780; or of a contract by the company on its own behalf for through transportation over a connecting line,” referred to in Mills v. B., C. & A. Rwy.

Co., 111 Md. 260 , and in 10 C. J. 820; nor that the taxicab company was an agent of the Steam Packet Company. It is to be noted that a ticket for continuous passage is not necessarily a “through” ticket, but may merely indicate that there are no stop over privileges. In the absence of any such contract or proof of agency or partnership', the law in this state is that a railroad company, in selling a ticket over its own and connecting roads, presxxmably acts as agent for the connecting roads, and assumes no liability for negligence of the connecting roads. Mills v. B., C. & A. Ry.

Co., supra, and Pugh v. Washington Ry. & Elec. Co., supra. Especially is this true where liability is expressly negatived. That the taxicab company was a common carrier was decided in Goldsworthy v. Public Service Commission, 141 Md. 674 .

It follows that there wa's error in refusing the Steam Packet 'Company’s fifth prayer, which asked for a directed verdict in its favor on the ground “that the ticket with coupons attached which plaintiff purchased of the defendant * * * prim(l facie constitutes an agreement between plaintiff and the defendant; whereby this defendant in selling said ticket acted only as agent and was not responsible to plaintiff beyond its own line, and there is m> evidence that the Stewart Taxi-Service 'Company, which owned and operated the taxicab in which plaintiff was riding at the time the