Taxi Driver Online

I found this case interesting because it tells us how much cabbies paid for a track way back in 1872. 18 shillings per day was a lot of money in those days and seven days work amounted to six pounds thirty pence. The case is too long to publish but you can clearly see the reference to 18s.


FOWLER v LOCK

[COURT OF COMMON PLEAS]

[L R] 7 C P 272

HEARING-DATES: 4 May 1872

4 May 1872

Master and Servant - Relation of Cab-Proprietor and Driver - Bailor and Bailee.

HEADNOTE:

The plaintiff, a cab-driver, obtained from the defendant, a cab-proprietor, a horse and cab on the usual terms, which are that the driver shall at the end of the day hand over to the proprietor 18s., retaining for himself all the day's earnings over that sum, - the day's food for the horse being supplied by the owner, and the latter having no control over the driver after leaving the yard. The horse with which the driver was furnished, which was fresh from the country and had never before been harnessed to a cab, bolted and overturned the cab and injured the driver. The jury found that the horse was not reasonably fit to be driven in a cab:-

Held, by Byles and Grove, JJ., that the relation between the parties was that of bailor and bailee, and consequently that, upon this finding of the jury, the proprietor was responsible for the injury sustained by the driver.

Held, by Willes, J., that the relation was that of master and servant (or at most co-adventurers), and therefore that, in the absence of evidence of personal negligence or misconduct on his part, the owner was not responsible.

Powles v. Hider (6 E. & B. 207; 25 L. J. (Q.B.) 331) observed upon.

INTRODUCTION:

THE first count of the declaration stated that the defendant was a proprietor of cabs and horses, and was accustomed to let the same out for hire, and was possessed of a horse which was of a vicious and unmanageable disposition, dangerous, and not fit to be, and had never before been, driven in a cab; that the defendant, well knowing the premises, let the same out to hire to the plaintiff for the purpose of being harnessed to a cab and being therein driven by

the plaintiff in the way of his, the plaintiff's, occupation of a cab-driver, for reward to the defendant in that behalf, and fraudulently and wrongfully concealed from the plaintiff the fact of the horse being vicious, unmanageable, and dangerous, not fit to be, and that it had never before been, driven in a cab; that the plaintiff had no notice or knowledge of that fact; and that, by reason of the premises, the horse, whilst so hired as aforesaid, and after the same had been harnessed to a cab for the purpose of being, and whilst being, driven therein by the plaintiff in the way of his said occupation as aforesaid, kicked, plunged, reared, and became unmanageable, and bolted and ran away and up an embankment, and overturned the cab; whereby the plaintiff was injured and prevented from following his occupation, &c.

Second count, that, in consideration that the plaintiff would hire of the defendant a horse of the defendant for the purpose of being harnessed to a cab and being therein driven by the plaintiff in the way of his occupation as a cab-driver, for reward to the defendant in that behalf, the defendant promised to let the same to the plaintiff on hire for the purpose and on the terms aforesaid, and that the horse was reasonably fit and proper for the purpose of being driven by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff accordingly hired and the defendant let to hire to the plaintiff the said horse for the purpose and on the terms aforesaid; yet the horse was not then reasonably fit and proper for the purpose aforesaid, and after the same had been harnessed to a cab for the purpose of being driven, and whilst being driven therein by the plaintiff as aforesaid, kicked, &c., as in the first count.

Pleas, 1, to the first count, not guilty; 2, to the second count, that the defendant did not promise, as alleged; 3, to the second count, that the horse was at the time of the making of the supposed promise, reasonably fit and proper for the purpose in the second count alleged. Issue thereon.

The cause was tried before Byles, J., at the second sitting for Middlesex in last Michaelmas Term. The plaintiff is a cab-driver. The defendant is a cab-proprietor carrying on his business in Gray's Inn Road. On the 24th of June last the plaintiff, who had before driven cabs belonging to the defendant, applied to him for a cab and horse for the day, and the defendant agreed to supply them to

him upon the usual terms, viz. that the plaintiff should at the end of the day hand over to the defendant 18s. of the day's earnings, retaining all over that sum for himself, - the day's food for the horse being supplied by the defendant, and the owner having no control over the driver after leaving the yard. The first horse which was offered to the plaintiff refused to go beyond the gate of the stable-yard; the second lay down in the road three or four times before he had got a mile from home; and then the defendant, pointing to a grey mare, - a well-bred animal, rising five years, fresh from the country, having just been purchased at Horncastle Fair for 26l., - said: "That is a likely one; you may try her if you like." The grey was accordingly harnessed to the cab, and the plaintiff started with her; but in a short time she kicked and plunged and the plaintiff lost all control over her, and ultimately the cab was upset and the plaintiff injured. There was evidence that it was usual, before putting fresh horses to cab work, for the defendant, to try them in a gingle, which in this case had not been done.
...............................................................................