(A) Introduction
In Khan Farooq Ahmed v. Delivery Hero Food Hong Kong Ltd formerly known as Rocket Food Ltd, HCPI 65/ 2022, date of judgment: 3 September 2025, [1] the Court addressed a personal injury claim brought by a food delivery worker who was required to work under typhoon signal no. 8 (“T8”).
This case establishes an important precedent regarding an employer’s duty of care toward employees under adverse weather conditions. It serves as a clear reminder to all employers of their obligations when instructing employees to work under adverse weather conditions.
(B) Facts
On 18 August 2020, the Plaintiff (“P”), a food delivery worker employed by the Defendant (“D”), commenced work at 7:34 p.m. while a typhoon signal no. 3 was in force. At 9:15 p.m., D sent a warning via the messaging platform Telegram (“Telegram”) stating that T8 was about to be issued and instructing the riders to prioritize their safety (the “Warning”). [2] Despite the Warning, P continued to accept and complete orders. At 10:58 p.m., about 18 minutes after T8 was issued, he was struck by a sudden gust of wind while riding his motorcycle home, causing him to lose control and fall (the “Accident”).
P alleged that D operated an unsafe system of work by permitting riders to accept orders until T8 was issued, and by expecting them to complete those orders while T8 was in force. He further claimed that D should have suspended operations once the Hong Kong Observatory issued a pre-T8 warning.
D’s case is that it was impractical to give specific instructions to its riders/ delivery workers out in the field when each of them would be under different circumstances. Further, D submitted that P, who decided his own mode of work and provided his own means of transport, did not need specific instructions as to whether and how he should drive in rain and wind. D also argued that as a qualified and prudent driver, P should have exercised common sense and ceased driving when conditions became unsafe. Additionally, D submitted that it was impracticable to suspend its operation once the Hong Kong Observatory announced a pre-T8 warning and emphasized that it had adopted a safe system of work by ensuring no new orders were taken up after T8 was in force.
(C) Decision
Liability
The Court held that D breached its duty of care owe to P in negligence, implied terms of the contract of employment and statutory duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and found D liable for causing the Accident as well as the resulting injuries sustained by P on the following grounds:
On 18 August 2020, the Plaintiff (“P”), a food delivery worker employed by the Defendant (“D”), commenced work at 7:34 p.m. while a typhoon signal no. 3 was in force. At 9:15 p.m., D sent a warning via the messaging platform Telegram (“Telegram”) stating that T8 was about to be issued and instructing the riders to prioritize their safety (the “Warning”). [2] Despite the Warning, P continued to accept and complete orders. At 10:58 p.m., about 18 minutes after T8 was issued, he was struck by a sudden gust of wind while riding his motorcycle home, causing him to lose control and fall (the “Accident”).
P alleged that D operated an unsafe system of work by permitting riders to accept orders until T8 was issued, and by expecting them to complete those orders while T8 was in force. He further claimed that D should have suspended operations once the Hong Kong Observatory issued a pre-T8 warning.
D’s case is that it was impractical to give specific instructions to its riders/ delivery workers out in the field when each of them would be under different circumstances. Further, D submitted that P, who decided his own mode of work and provided his own means of transport, did not need specific instructions as to whether and how he should drive in rain and wind. D also argued that as a qualified and prudent driver, P should have exercised common sense and ceased driving when conditions became unsafe. Additionally, D submitted that it was impracticable to suspend its operation once the Hong Kong Observatory announced a pre-T8 warning and emphasized that it had adopted a safe system of work by ensuring no new orders were taken up after T8 was in force.
(C) Decision
Liability
The Court held that D breached its duty of care owe to P in negligence, implied terms of the contract of employment and statutory duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and found D liable for causing the Accident as well as the resulting injuries sustained by P on the following grounds:
(1) Failure to provide a safe system of work: The Court found that the Telegram messages directly contradicted the terms of P’s employment contract with D. The “Amendment to Employment” signed by P with D on 13 June 2018 (the “Amendment”) stipulated that by accepting a job after a T8 was hoisted, P implicitly agreed to deliver under those conditions. Further, if T8 was raised during a delivery, he was implicitly required to continue unless he contacted a dispatcher with a valid reason to stop. The Court rejected D’s argument that P was free to decline orders because (a) P's income and performance rating were directly tied to accepting and fulfilling orders and (b) the riders including P would be at its busiest during the typhoons or poor weather conditions as more customers would be placing their orders on the food delivery platform.
(2) Exposed P to an unnecessary risk of injury: The Court found that D, as the operator of the system, was responsible for ensuring it could be shut down in a timely manner to prevent workers from being exposed to the dangers of working under T8. By requiring riders to complete deliveries after T8 was issued, D exposed P and his co-workers to an unnecessary risk of injury.
(3) Breach of the Code of Practice issued by the Labour Department: The Court found that D breached the Code of Practice in Times of Adverse Weather and Extreme Conditions issued by the Labour Department (the “Code”).The Telegram was an ineffective communication system because it required riders to close the delivery app to see messages, which was an unreasonable expectation during T8, one of their busiest time. Further, by requesting its employees including P to sign the Amendment, D attempted to get round the Code which advised all employees to suspend all outdoor work in exposed areas and take shelter in a safe place during typhoon.
Contributory Negligence
The Court found P 20% contributory negligence for the Accident on the following grounds:
Contributory Negligence
The Court found P 20% contributory negligence for the Accident on the following grounds:
(1) Failure to read messages on Telegram: P failed to check the Telegram messages from D, particularly the Warning.
(2) Failure to find a safe place or shelter: After completing his final delivery, P chose to ride a motorcycle under T8 home instead of finding a safe place to shelter until the typhoon passed.
Quantum
The Court accepted that P sustained genuine right knee injuries as a result of the Accident, but found that he significantly exaggerated his symptoms, particularly regarding the extent of his disability and dependence on a wheelchair.
Regarding P’s ability to resume pre-accident job, the Court rejected Dr. Ko’s opinion, which stated that P could resume his pre-accident job as a delivery rider with only minimal impairment. Instead, the Court found that due to the demanding nature of the job, especially during peak hours, P would not be able to return to work as a rider.
The damages were awarded as follows:
(D) Key Takeaways
Quantum
The Court accepted that P sustained genuine right knee injuries as a result of the Accident, but found that he significantly exaggerated his symptoms, particularly regarding the extent of his disability and dependence on a wheelchair.
Regarding P’s ability to resume pre-accident job, the Court rejected Dr. Ko’s opinion, which stated that P could resume his pre-accident job as a delivery rider with only minimal impairment. Instead, the Court found that due to the demanding nature of the job, especially during peak hours, P would not be able to return to work as a rider.
The damages were awarded as follows:
| HK$ |
Pain, suffering & loss of amenities | $500,000 |
Pre-trial loss of earnings & MPF | $827,035 |
Future Loss of Earnings & MPF | $1,360,553 |
Loss of earning capacity | Nil |
Special damages | $20,000 |
| $2,707,588 |
Less contributory negligence at 20% | ($541,518) |
Gross total: | $2,166,070 |
Less EC payment | ($817,861) |
Net total: | $1,348,209 |
(D) Key Takeaways
In conclusion, this case provides useful guidance for employer liability and workplace safety, particularly within the gig economy and during extreme weather condition:
(1) Employers have a non-delegable duty of care to provide a safe system of work, which extends to protecting employees from foreseeable risks posed by severe weather conditions, including T8.
(2) Practical or operational impracticality is not a valid defence for failing to suspend hazardous work during T8. Employers should be responsible for implementing systems of work that can be shut down safely and promptly.
(3) Employers must adhere to the Code of Practice in Times of Adverse Weather and “Extreme Conditions” published by the Labour Department, making practical and reasonable work arrangements for employees during and after tropical cyclone warnings. [3]
No comments:
Post a Comment