Court Opinion

ID: 9442963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:05:37.696101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:18.500696
License: Public Domain

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
The question on this appeal is controlled by the law laid down in Callas v. Independent Taxi Owner’s Ass’n, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 212, 214, 66 F.2d 192, 194. There this court) dealing with a substantially similar state of facts, said: “* * * the car was operating as a taxicab at the time of the accident, bearing the peculiar colors and *462trade-name of the defendant company; and consequently was legally presumed to be in the custody and on the business of the person whose name it bore.” Concerning the presumption the Court said: “Whether the effect of this presumption was overcome by ■ the testimony of the president of the company that it‘did not own a cab, and his intimations that it was not .in the cab business was a question of fact for the fury, and consequently its decision as a question of law by the court was error.” " [Emphasis added.]
In the present case the learned trial judge treated the presumption as conclusive — a presumption of law rather than -of fact, and so instructed the jury. The practical result, was to, apply estoppel as in Rhone v. Try Me Cab Co., 1933, 62 App.D.C. 201, 65 F.2d 834. However, that decision rested upon a contractual relationship of the cab company to a passenger, whereas the present case involves a non-passenger. Therefore, I agree that the judgment must be reversed.