Deliveroo accident liability

[Clitheroekid]

I've just been asked to advise someone whose car was rammed by a Deliveroo driver riding his bike at high speed, causing around £2,000 worth of damage.

Fortunately, the driver was surprisingly uninjured, and readily admitted liability. However, he has no insurance, and the prospects of recovering anything from him personally don't look very rosy.

So I'm considering suing Deliveroo on the basis that they are `vicariously liable' as his employer. I do, of course, realise that they are likely to deny being an employer, and will claim he's self-employed, but as in the field of employment law what they say isn't necessarily what the law would say.

I'm also interested to see whether they would really be willing to let that assertion be tested in the civil courts, as it could establish an expensive precedent for their insurers. But in some ways I hope they do fight it, as it would be a very interesting argument.

I've sent the initial claim letter, so we'll see what transpires.

[swill453]

Is the possibility that they're deemed to be the employer enough for a claim to succeed? Or does there need to be some other factor like negligence on their part?

Scott.

[Alaric]

I'I do, of course, realise that they are likely to deny being an employer, and will claim he's self-employed, but as in the field of employment law what they say isn't necessarily what the law would say.

Employment status is becoming something of a moveable feast with the taxman trying hard and perhaps succeeding with IR35 applied to service companies so as to treat single client marginal cases as directly employed. There's a Pimlico Plumbers case going through the Courts where despite HMRC accepting self-employed status with the accompanying tax advantages, the "employee" wants to be treated as such for sick pay and unfair dismissal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43115219

[Clitheroekid]

Is the possibility that they're deemed to be the employer enough for a claim to succeed? Or does there need to be some other factor like negligence on their part?

There always has to be negligence for such a claim to succeed. In the absence of negligence there is no claim at all.

The concept of vicarious liability simply means that the negligence of the employee is attributed to the employer, so that they are equally liable to compensate the victim.

[Gaggsy]

Going by the recent case of Cox v Ministry of Justice http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/10.html I think you're onto a winner.

The Supreme Court stressed that vicarious liability cannot be avoided by technical arguments about the employment status of the individual who committed the acts.

Commentary here: https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/two ... liability/

[stewamax]

Quite apart from whether the driver was an employee or self-employed, it does raise the issue - and Deliveroo may want to avoid having it raised - of whether Deliveroo has a responsibility to ensure that any driver it gives business to was 'legally competent' to undertake deliveries: in particular whether he/she carried current third-party insurance that included 'business' as well as the usual 'social domestic and pleasure' (assuming this deliverer was riding a motorbike and not a pedal-bike - Deliveroo 'employ' both).
If he were a motorcyclist, say for example that the driver was not only uninsured but also that he had no driving licence, had seriously deficient eyesight, and that the motorbike has no MOT and was mechanically defective. How far could Deliveroo wash their hands of this?

[Watis]

Well, it has started.

In London, Uber have been forced by Transport for London to require their drivers to have an English language qualification from July.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/resour ... quirement/

Ironically, this page is only available in English!

I'm minded to be in favour of this. I don't want any taxi driver I use to be unable to read and comprehend road signs at a glance.

As for meeting the other legal requirements - driving licence, MOT, good enough eyesight, etc. I would expect Uber, Deliveroo, or whoever to have formally required the driver to be responsible for these matters when taking them on, whether self-employed or employed.

Watis

[swill453]

(assuming this deliverer was riding a motorbike and not a pedal-bike - Deliveroo 'employ' both).

I was assuming it was a pedal bike, otherwise the lack of insurance would take on a whole new (and illegal) aspect.

Scott.

[didds]

(assuming this deliverer was riding a motorbike and not a pedal-bike - Deliveroo 'employ' both).

I was assuming it was a pedal bike, otherwise the lack of insurance would take on a whole new (and illegal) aspect.

Scott.

That's a good call Scott.

Though the OP said "Fortunately, the driver was surprisingly uninjured, and readily admitted liability"... which suggests to me a motorised vehicle. Though again, I would have used a term like "rider" possibly.

Postulating, "lack of insurance" may mean entirely that, or a lack of cover for deliveries (which aiui is often a separate "thing" to just business use).

Hopefully the OP can clarify.

cheers

didds

[UncleEbenezer]

(assuming this deliverer was riding a motorbike and not a pedal-bike - Deliveroo 'employ' both).

I was assuming it was a pedal bike, otherwise the lack of insurance would take on a whole new (and illegal) aspect.

Scott.

Most pedal cyclists have third-party insurance (commonly - as I do - through the personal liability in a household insurance policy). Lack of insurance is more likely to be down to exclusions on business activity, which would apply either way.

[swill453]

Most pedal cyclists have third-party insurance (commonly - as I do - through the personal liability in a household insurance policy). Lack of insurance is more likely to be down to exclusions on business activity, which would apply either way.

The wording of the OP "Fortunately, the driver was surprisingly uninjured, and readily admitted liability. However, he has no insurance, and the prospects of recovering anything from him personally don't look very rosy." to me doesn't sound like we're talking about an exclusion on business activity.

Scott.

[Clitheroekid]

Though the OP said "Fortunately, the driver was surprisingly uninjured, and readily admitted liability"... which suggests to me a motorised vehicle. Though again, I would have used a term like "rider" possibly.

For the avoidance of doubt it was a bicycle, not a motorbike. Sorry for the confusion - I did hesitate before using the term `driver', but I felt that `rider' or `cyclist' was too passive in the circumstances.

I've not looked at whether or not he had any third party cover under some form of household policy, as I really want to target Deliveroo themselves. However, I would agree that if he did have any such cover it would almost certainly exclude this type of incident.

[AF62]

Deliveroo sell their bicycle delivery riders insurance against this type of issue, which would indicate they believe the responsibility falls on the rider - https://deliveroo.bikmo.com/ (as an aside 65p a week seems quite cheap). So there is the possibility that the rider was insured having signed up when they joined Deliveroo but didn't realise it.

A quick Google shows this isn't an isolated incident and some of the articles mention Deliveroo coming up with a 'solution' when pressed, which indicates they will brush people off where they can but the persistent may succeed.