Delivery rider, contractual label and a detour to collect a child
SwiftMove Ghana Ltd describes its delivery riders in their contracts as 'independent contractors'. They wear SwiftMove uniforms, use an app that assigns routes and times, are forbidden from working for competitors, and are paid per delivery. The company also supplies the motorcycles and deducts maintenance fees. One Friday, rider Yaw is assigned a delivery from Accra to Tema. After dropping the parcel, he deviates about three kilometres to collect his child from school in Nungua. On the way he knocks down Adjoa, a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, fracturing her leg. SwiftMove says Yaw was on a frolic of his own; Yaw had been warned twice for speeding. Adjoa sues SwiftMove, alleging vicarious liability and direct negligence in entrusting the motorcycle to a known speeder. The contract states Yaw is 'solely responsible for all accidents'.
1. Is Yaw an employee or an independent contractor despite the contractual label? Explain the tests a Ghanaian court would apply.
Read the worked answer
Employee or independent contractor?
The contract label is not decisive. Ghanaian courts apply the control test, the integration/organisation test and the economic reality test. SwiftMove assigns routes and times through its app, requires its uniform, forbids work for competitors, supplies the motorcycle and deducts maintenance. Those facts point strongly to employment: the company controls not just the result but how, when and where Yaw works. Payment per delivery is a wage method, not conclusive. The clause making Yaw 'solely responsible' cannot bind Adjoa, who is not a party to it; it may regulate internal liability only. Yaw is therefore likely an employee, so the first gateway for vicarious liability is satisfied.
2. Was Yaw acting in the course of his employment when he knocked down Adjoa? Apply the frolic doctrine and the close-connection approach.
Read the worked answer
Course of employment: the detour
The second question is whether the collision occurred in the course of employment. The classic formulation in Salmond asks whether the servant was doing an authorised act, or an unauthorised mode of doing it, rather than an act outside the scope altogether. A detour purely for the servant's own purposes is a 'frolic of his own' (Joel v Morison; Storey v Ashton), but a minor deviation may remain within employment.
Here Yaw had completed the delivery but was still on duty, in uniform, using the company motorcycle and app. He deviated three kilometres to collect his child. That is a personal purpose, but it is not necessarily a complete abandonment of employment. The court will ask how close the connection is between the employment and the collision. The fact that the employer put him on the road and required him to ride in the area is relevant, but mere opportunity is not enough. On balance, a three-kilometre personal detour looks like a frolic; SwiftMove is likely to escape vicarious liability for the collision unless the court treats the detour as incidental. The result is fact-sensitive, and the burden is on Adjoa to show course of employment.
3. Assess the direct negligence claim against SwiftMove for entrusting the motorcycle to Yaw after two speeding warnings.
Read the worked answer
Direct liability
Adjoa should also plead SwiftMove's own negligence. An employer owes a direct duty to select, train, supervise and entrust equipment with reasonable care. SwiftMove knew Yaw had been warned twice for speeding. If it continued to assign him a motorcycle without further training or monitoring, that may be negligent entrustment. But Adjoa must prove causation: the collision at a zebra crossing may have been caused by a failure to give way, not by speed. The prior warnings do not prove that he was speeding at the time. The per-delivery pay structure may have encouraged speed, but that is supporting evidence, not a complete case. On the facts, direct liability is arguable but weaker than the vicarious claim; disclosure of the app's speed data and maintenance records would be important.