Opinion ID: 196050
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cabdrivers' Liability.

Text: v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 640 F. Supp. 117 (D.P.R. 1986), the magistrate posited that, as a matter of law, cabdrivers (and, ergo, their employers) are not liable to passengers for crimes committed by third persons. Jacob is not a comfortable fit. In Jacob, an independent cabdriver transporting fares from the airport to a hotel paused at a red light. Thieves rushed the car, held the driver at gunpoint, and attempted to rob the passengers. In the commotion that ensued, a passenger was shot. See id. at 118. The district court concluded on the 7 particular facts of the case that a cabdriver had no duty to guard against third-party criminal activity. See id. at 119. In reaching its decision the court noted that [u]nlike a hotel . . . the nature of [defendant's] business does not demand special security measures. Id. Here, however, unlike in Jacob, the defendant is a hotel, albeit one that is being sued because it elected to furnish transportation services ancillary to its principal business. Moreover, unlike in Jacob, where the court emphasized that the cabdriver was a public carrier for hire, id., the operator of the vehicle rented to Taber was not a common carrier (or even a cabdriver) but an employee of the hotel, performing a private service for a private purpose. Thus, though Coyne was in a car, she was just as much a ward of the hotel as if she was in her suite or in the lobby. Even assuming, then, that taxicab operators are not within the reach of article 1057 a matter on which we take no position we are of the opinion that the defendant here must be viewed as an innkeeper rather than as a taxicab operator. It follows, therefore, that the magistrate's reliance on Jacob does not resonate with the issue of duty in the instant case.