The issue of whether a taxi driver was an agent or an employee of a defendant taxi company recently came before the California Court of Appeal. Following a motorcycle crash, the plaintiff in this case had filed a personal injury claim against the taxi driver who crashed into him and the company for which he worked. The trial court had found that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that the driver was an agent of the taxi company, and it granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence did show agency and supported the verdict. On appeal, the court held that public regulations could be used to determine principal-agent relations, when those regulations require the taxi company to exert control.
While riding his motorcycle through West Hollywood, the plaintiff had been struck by the defendant’s taxi, coming from an opposite direction, which turned left in front of the plaintiff. The defendant driver opened his taxi and set his own hours. He had a contract with the defendant taxi company, and it stated he was an independent contractor.