Case Review III - Safety Shields and Independent Contractors
Arnie Kast of the Taxi Brotherhood used to tell me that safety shields in Chicago taxicabs are illegal. He said that shields were deemed unconstitutional by the courts and that the ruling had never been overturned. He cited MEYERSON v. CARTER, 22 Ill. App.3d 73 (1974).
This was a case that overturned a state law requiring the shields in taxicabs. The central issue in the case concerned the definition of “bullet proof.” According to the legislation requiring the shields, taxicabs had to have bullet proof partitions in the cabs. Failure to comply resulted in a fine.
However, the plaintiffs successfully argued that there was no suitable definition for bullet proof materials that met transparency requirements of the partitions. Due to this vagueness, it was argued that a partition could be purchased that wouldn’t clearly be bullet proof and, as a result, a fine could be unfairly imposed by the city.
The suit also claimed that the statute requiring the safety shields “constituted an invalid exercise of the police power by compelling a citizen to guard his own safety without benefiting the general public.”
The plaintiffs further alleged that the safety shields imposed following hazards:
• A driver’s vision was distorted by multiple images reflecting off of the shields.
• Blind spots were enlarged, reducing side and rear view vision.
• The transparency of the shield eventually becomes obscured through scratches and yellowing.
• Passengers were in danger of being thrown forward against the shield.
• Drivers were in danger of striking their heads against the shield.
• Heat and air conditioning was impaired, affecting circulation to passenger areas and overdosing the driver’s area.
• Communication was impaired between drivers and passengers.
• A driver’s sitting comfort was impaired due to the inability to move the seat back.
• Drivers were prevented from having access to rear doors in the event of an emergency.
• Drivers obtained a false sense of security because the term bulletproof was inaccurate.
The circuit court’s decision was appealed in the Appellate Court of Illinois. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that “bullet proof” was in fact vague and that the statute was unconstitutional.
So how is it that there are safety shields in taxicabs in Chicago today? Are the cab owners and the city just breaking the law? Are they ignoring the court's ruling? More mass conspiracy?
Or did they city just change the words "bullet proof" to "bullet resistant" and push the law through uncontested?
Do you see the parallels with the shield issue and the argument the independent contractor/employee issue?
