'dial-ride' Suit Dismissed

Washtenaw Cunty Circuit Jirage Ross W. Campbell yesterday afternoon dismissed a lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor in which local taxicab drivers sought to prevent the city's experimental "dial-a-ride" transportation system f rom going into operation. The ruling carne after approximately 75 minutes of deliberation in the judge's chambers and without any testimony. In dismissing the suit and thereby allowing the city to commence with its plans to introduce "dial-a-ride" later this month, Campbell granted a motion of summary judgment in favor of the city and the Ford Motor Co., co-defendant in the case. The summary judgment, in effect, means that no cause of legal action nor basis for court relief was set forth by the plaintiffs- the Veteran Cab Owners Association, the Yellow Cab Co. and six individual cab drivers, each of whom has operated a taxi in Ann Arbor for at least 10 years. City Attorney Jerold Lax filed the motion for summary judgment after attorney James Crippen, representing the taxicab companies and drivers, filed the lawsuit on Aug. 26. Basically, the suit charged the' city and Ford (which is supplying Ann Arbor with the mini-bus vehicles to be used in the innovative project) with "unfair competition" in creating a 'competing taxi system" which will opérate on a substantially lower fare rate scale than taxicabs and thus, Crippen claimed, drive the local taxi industry out of business. The suit also contended creation of "dial-a-ride" would be in violation of the so-called Taxicab Ordinance of the Ann Arbor City Code and maintained that the city's agreement with Ford amounted to fraud against Ann Arbor taxpayers. In court yesterday on a show-cause order signed by Campbell last month, Lax ánd Crippen argued whether "dial-aride" would be a bus system or a taxi system. Lax cited to the court a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decisión involving the operation of street cars in San Francisco which he said supported the city's position that "dial-a-ride" is legal. He further accused the plaintiff taxicab companies and drivers of ". . . having every opportunity to particípate in and even to opérate the system, but now at the eleventh hour choosing to challenge the city's authority to establish the system." Crippen, in turn, emphasized that the cab drivers could not realistically compete with the flat 60 cent fare to be charged in "dial-a-ride". "This is going to destroy us . . . it will virtually destroy' us overnight," Crippen claimed. He also alleged that "a few people in a political position who would like to feather their own nests" were behind the initiation of the system. "These people have no concern for the legitímate businessman," he added. Despite these arguments, Judge Campbell upheld the city and did not grant the injunction blocking "dial-a-ride" which Crippen and the cab drivers sought. The judge said the dispute between the city and the taxicab companies is a "most unfortunate situation," but went on to state the various points in the case which he feit were in the city's favor and which made "dial-a-ride" a lawful transportation system.