IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company :

:

v. : No. 964 C.D. 2016

: SUBMITTED: January 27, 2017 Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER , Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE HEARTHWAY FILED: April 26, 2017

Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) appeals from a May 13,

2016 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court),

which reversed the Authority’s decision, determining that the Authority failed to

show that the Germantown Cab Company (Germantown) was subject to the

Authority’s protective shield requirement set forth in Section 1017 .5(b)(12) of

Title 52 of the Pennsylvania Code. 1 We affirm.

1 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12) provides in pertinent part that taxicabs “must be equipped
with a protective shield which separates the front seat from the back seat and bears the

manufacturer’s name....”2 On April 24, 2014, Inspector Matthew Black of the Taxicab and

Limousine Division (TLD) of the Authority issued citation T

- 16817 to

Germantown for violating 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12) (no protec tive shield).

Germantown appealed the citation and requested a hearing on the merits. Hearings

were scheduled on three separate dates and continued at the request of

Germantown on each occasion. A hearing was ultimately held on March 11, 2015,

at which Germantown did not appear.

The TLD only presented the testimony of Inspector Black. Inspector

Black stated that on April 24, 2014, he conducted a routine inspection of the

taxicab, which was located in a City of Philadelphia (City) impoundment lot.

I nspector Black stated that “[t]he car was live stopped by the police department for

[an] unauthorized driver.” 2 (N.T. at 7.) Inspector Black stated that the vehicle was

being operated within the City at the time it was stopped. ( Id. ) Inspector Black

de termined that the taxicab did not have a driver safety shield as required by the

Authority’s regulations and thus, issued the citation against Germantown. ( Id. )

The Authority sustained the citation and imposed a civil penalty of $100.00, along

with an ad ministration fee of $75.00, for a total of $175.00. Germantown appealed

to the trial court.

2 The inspection report indicates that the taxicab driver was operating the vehicle with a
suspended driver’s license.3 The trial court reasoned that because the taxicab is a partial rights

taxicab 3 it may be regulated by the PUC and/or the Authority while operating

within certa in areas of the City . Thus, the Authority must establish that the taxicab

was actually providing point

- to

- point service within the City and outside of its

certificate at the time of the violation. The trial court determined that the Authority

failed to p resent any evidence that the taxicab was providing taxicab service in the

City or that it was operating outside of its certificate at the time it was impounded.

The trial court reversed and the Authority appealed to this Court. 4 We affirm on

other ground s.

This Court in Bucks County Services, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking

Authority , (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 584 M.D. 2011, filed November 28, 2016) (single

judge opinion by Brobson, J.), determined that the Authority’s regulations were

invalid and unenforcea ble towards partial rights taxicabs. On January 3, 2017, this

Court amended its original order in Bucks County Services and declared invalid,

among other regulations, 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12) (protective shield

3 The Authority regulates the operation of taxicabs in the City, while the PUC regulates
all other taxicabs in Pennsylvania. Taxicabs th at only partially operate within the City are
considered partial rights taxicabs. A partial rights taxicab may only provide service in the City
pursuant to a certificate issued by the Authority. 52 Pa. Code § 1015.2(a). Here, the
Germantown taxicab oper ated mostly outside the City but had a certificate to operate partially
within the City. Thus, the Germantown taxicab was a partial rights taxicab.

4 The Authority functions as an agency of our Commonwealth in taxicab cases.
Germantown Cab Company v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , __ A.2d ___, ___ n. 4 (Pa.

Cmwlth. , No. 993 C.D. 2016, filed March 6, 2017). Our review is thus limited to determining
whether constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, whether errors of law were

committe d, and whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. ( Id. )4

requirement). ( Bucks County Services, Mem orandum and Order, 1/3/17, at 3

- 5.)

This Court reasoned that:

the manner in which the Authority enacted its 2011 regulations without any consideration of the material differences between medallion taxicabs and partial rights taxicabs and the resulting di sproportionate burdens place d upon partial rights taxicabs evidences a purely arbitrary exercise of the Authority’s rulemaking power, which resulted in regulations that were bereft of any reasonableness with resp ect to partial rights taxicabs.

( Id. at 2

- 3.)

Because this Court has invalidated the Authority’s regulation

requiring protective shield s in partial rights taxicabs, we must affirm the trial

court ’ s order reversing the Authority’s determination uph o ld ing the citation issued

against German town for lack of a protective shield.

Accordingly, we affirm.

__________________________________ JULIA K . HEARTHWAY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company :

:

v. : No. 964 C.D. 2016

: Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26 th day of April, 201 7

, the order of the Philadelphia

County Court of Common Pleas in the above

- captioned matter is affirmed.

__________________________________ JULIA K . HEARTHWAY, Judge