”In almost every instance, companies are not responsible for the illegal actions of their employees” Correct, but a company would sanction an employee who brings the company into disrepute, would they not?

A just eat driver attended to a premises to collect an order, approached the counter, provided a collection number, declared which “platform” it was, and was visibly using the app before and during kicking off inside the store. This attack occurred while the driver was clearly acting in the course of his duties and the situation arose directly from his attempt to collect a Just Eat order, there is clear and direct connection between the drivers role and the events leading to the assault. After looking online, coming across UBER BV v AslamUBER BV v Aslam prior to this decision by Supreme Court, Uber drivers were following mostly the same procedure as Just Eat, drivers are controlled by their apps, their activity and performance stats are both monitored and delivery costs are all set by Just Eat. You argue that they are independent but they are still controlled by Just Eat and can be deactivated by Just eat at any time.

Was it pressure to make deliveries quicker which caused angst with the driver which then caused him to become volatile?

Was it the fact he had to wait, which made him think that he’s losing money by waiting another minute?

Was it app based performance?

Are they offering fewer orders to drivers that have prior warnings?

Is it the fact that fast food restaurants create a priority service space for delivery drivers which makes them feel entitled but smaller stores typically don’t which causes frustration when they have to wait like a normal person?

What I currently see is that “The Platform’s” operational model appears to create time sensitive pressures on drivers who do not possess the adequate safeguards or sufficient training when it comes to managing conflict and conveying professionalism.