Transportation Case Summary
On June 30, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial court's finding of summary judgment granted to a Chicago taxi company finding that there were "material questions of fact" as to whether the driver was the taxi company's agent when he assaulted the female plaintiff passenger.
Plaintiff ordered a cab from the taxi company's website for a ride to O'Hare Airport. Following the early morning pick up, and while driving to the airport, the driver pulled over and demanded the rider sit in the front seat with him. She refused, and he then sexually assaulted her. She secretly recorded part of the assault with her cell phone and the driver later confessed and pleaded guilty to battery.
After suit was filed, the taxi company denied agency or employment and that there was no evidence that the driver was acting as their agent at the time of the assault. Plaintiff denied any knowledge that the driver was considered an independent contractor, not an employee or agent for the taxi company.
The court referenced that common carriers such as taxi companies are held to a higher duty of care than other private carriers. Based on this and the factual details, the court held that even though the taxi company held out the driver as an independent contractor, he could also be seen as their agent because of how they structured their business. Significant to its decision, the court noted that the cab was painted with the taxi company's color scheme and used its suburban dispatch services.
This decision is from Illinois' First Appellate District, which includes Cook County. We expect the decision will materially impact agency issues relating to ride share application companies and other related transportation entities.
McNerney v. Muhtar Allamuradov, et al., 2017 IL App (1st) 153515.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
