Zoom Alliance's corporate negligence

Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd’s policy on not taking responsibility for the damages and injuries they cause to people and property on our roads/highways is an example of the brazen corporate negligence which is a growing threat to the general public and a direct threat to the rule of law

Around the end of 2013, as I sat in one of the court rooms at the Accra High Court in wait for a case which I was following to be called, an interesting case, suit number AC 41/2014, between Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd (the defendant) and one Doreen A. (the plaintiff) was called up. The noble, common sense reliefs which the plaintiff was seeking versus the ruthless, remorseless disavowal of responsibility by the defendant struck a cord in me which is too often encountered by the average citizens of our nation: The feeling that we cannot stand up to big companies and government bodies even if we are violated, unjustly inconvenienced, injured or defrauded by them.

From the court proceedings and documents, the merits of the case are as follows: In the early hours of May 10th, 2013, a Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd Dongfeng refuse truck hit and very badly damaged the plaintiffs car which was stationary at a stop light, waiting for the light to turn green, at the TT Brothers Intersection on the Dahwenya-Prampram Road. All passengers survived without serious injuries. The facts just stated were accepted by both parties. Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd, however, was disputing the cause of the accident. Contrary to the plaintiff’s claim that the accident was caused by the over-speeding of the Zoom Alliance truck driver who they claimed failed to see the stop light and failed to stop, the defendant argued that the accident was rather caused by a braking system failure on their truck per the accident report.

The plaintiff’s witnesses asserted that they saw the defendant’s driver giving money to the DVLA’s accident report officer in an effort to cause him to alter his findings so as to absolve the driver and in extension, the company, from blame. This claim of bribery by multiple witnesses might explain why despite the police (DVLA’s) subsequent report “findings” that the accident was caused by the malfunctioning of the brakes on the defendant’s refuse truck, the defendants driver was still instructed by the police to (and was able to) drive the same truck through heavy traffic to the Tema MTTU immediately after the accident without the so-called malfunctioning brakes being repaired or replaced at the accident scene. This informs me that contrary to the police accident report, the refuse truck’s brakes had no problems or defects before or after the accident. Needless to say that, with our current national situation of such grotesque endemic corruption, if the police report is to be given any credence, then both the police and the defendant aught to stand a criminal trial for knowingly condoning and operating a vehicle unfit for the road especially after the same vehicle had just caused a rather serious accident. This would have constituted a reckless endangerment to the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people on and off the roads.

The plaintiff was seeking for the defendant to repair her damaged vehicle. The defendant, was categorically refusing to be held responsible for the repairs or any other related costs. Even though the defendant, Zoom Alliance GH Ltd, accepted it was their brakes which malfunctioned and caused their truck to badly damage the defendants vehicle, they maintained that the destroyed vehicle was still not their responsibility because it was an “accident.” They prayed that the court absolve them of any responsibility because per their writ, it was all “purely accidental.” I was left scratching my head as it was obvious that Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd was asking the plaintiff to seek redress from the brakes on their truck instead of them, the owners of the truck, taking responsibility for the accident for not ensuring that their vehicle was road worthy and fit to be driven on that fateful day.

As if their line of reasoning and argument was not shocking and shameful enough, I was confronted with yet another undisputed damning revelation which raised my blood pressure even higher. It was revealed that Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd, the company which has the national contract and is paid to haul about 90% of the trash which all of Ghana generates, a company which has numerous big trucks on our roads and highways everyday of the week crossing paths with tens of thousands of people on our roads daily, had elected as matter of company policy to have a third party liability insurance coverage of two thousand cedis (¢2,000) on their refuse trucks. What? Unbelievable right? Very negligent right? Indeed I found this revelation so distressing and unbelievable that I wasted no time in investigating this claim. I contacted the defendants insurance provider and it turned out to be true. This truth was corroborated by messages from Zoom Alliance itself to the plaintiff which formed part of the tendered evidence in the case.

Simply put, by choosing this particularly inadequate coverage, Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd plans to receive and only disburse no more than ¢2,000 to help offset the cost of any accident or carnage which they cause on our roads. This includes accidents which private or public property, be they cheap or expensive, is totally damaged or innocent Ghanaians, irrespective of the total count, are injured or killed by their big garbage collection trucks. How can a company which has earned and continues to earn millions of cedis from their multiple-year contracts with the government and people of Ghana, select to be so negligent and refuse to implement common sense policies which will adequately protect those they serve and the people that they share the roads with, the people of Ghana. The fact that they would choose such a grossly inadequate policy and fight with their immense power in the courts, if the injured party can actually afford to take them to court, to reject responsibility of accidents which they accept were caused by a malfunctioning of their vehicles, demonstrates that they have no respect for the safety, wellbeing and interest of Ghanaians. Such disavowal of responsibility is very common with many of our big companies. Many of these companies use their resources to bully and walk over the average Ghanaian. Such actions demonstrates the disregard which some of these companies and their executive management teams have for the rules and laws which are designed to guide all actions and undertakings by individuals and organizations as we interact within our democratic republic. The decision makers within these companies feel empowered to overlook standard safety and consumer rights measures simply because they have gotten away with doing same in the past and believe they can get away with even worse. This to me was a demonstration of one of the worst forms of corporate negligence in our country.

Since my reason for being in the court on that day was to report on a different corporate negligence case, I decided to add this particular case to my list of relevant social justice cases. I promised myself I would follow up on it and bring it to the public domain at the right time. Fast forward to last week, the 4th week of February 2016. I checked at the court to find out if and how the honorable judge ruled in this case. It turns out that the honorable judge who ruled on the case agreed with the plaintiff that Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd was indeed responsible for repairing the plaintiff’s car so judgment was awarded to the plaintiff in January 2016, almost 3 years after the accident. My investigations also revealed that the defendant delayed and stretched the case as long as they possibly could within the rules of engagement in an effort to frustrate and cause more expenses to the plaintiff in hopes that she would drop the case. The biggest surprise from my latest enquiry is that the defendant, Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd, has filed an appeal and stay of execution to stop the payment for the repair of the plaintiff’s vehicle and settlement of some of her litigation costs as rightfully and justly awarded by the honorable court.

The road worthiness or status of the brakes on any vehicle is the responsibility of the owner of that vehicle. This chosen path of an appeal by the negligent company in question, Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd, is once again riddled with an intentional effort to remain unaccountable for their actions. It also seems to be a calculated effort to break the plaintiffs resolve at achieving the necessary and just redress in this matter. Even though I don't know the plaintiff, I can only imagine the pain, suffering and expense that the plaintiff, Doreen A, has had to bear and is still enduring due to this brazen attempt of another big company to have their cake and eat it, refusing to bear responsibility for the destruction caused by their vehicle/driver which was driven by their employee and by so doing causing grievous harm, frustration and untold growing expenses to an innocent, law abiding Ghanaian for the past three years and still counting. Since the plaintiff was only asking for her vehicle to be repaired, this should have been settled three years ago in the very week which the accident happened. At the time I felt that is was also necessary, fair and just, that a means of transportation or reimbursement for transportation during the trial and repair phase must be given or awarded the plaintiff since she pleaded with the court that this was her only vehicle and means of transport. I still feel this way and hope the distinguished appeals court will rule in favor of the plaintiff and increase the judgment to include all expenses and interests otherwise missing from the initial judgement.

In another civil trail that I am following, a construction company decided to put big boulders as make shift road blocks during a road construction in one of our local districts. They did so and failed to put adequate signs to warn drivers of this danger in the middle of the road. Sad to say a driver lost his dear life after he unknowingly drove into one of the boulder in the middle of the night. Again, rather than settle with the victims family, the owners of the construction company felt they bore no responsibility for the death of the driver and refused to provide any form of assistance or compensation to the victims family. This case is still ongoing at the high court.

Other examples of daily corporate negligence and infractions against Ghanaians who pay for their services and the general public include, but are not limited to, the ECG (dumsor every day), the Ghana Water Company (wake up at 2am to fill your gallons once every month or buy water after you have paid your expensive water bills), GPRTU (pay for a ride on an air condition bus which does not have air condition, plus most private bus owners that sign up use buses that are not adequately insured to cater for all the passengers should the unforeseen happen), Metro Mass, etc. For years, all of these companies have made unfulfilled promises to providing Ghanaians with optimum services in exchange for our paid monies.

We cannot ignore the role of some unethical corporate lawyers who in pursuit of validating and renewing their lucrative retainer agreements, often give bad advise to their clients, the corporations, advising them to take advantage of the absence of a vibrant consumer rights advocacy in Ghana. Seeking to underscore the value of their retainers or make a case for full time hiring arrangements, some of these lawyers unfortunately counsel their clients to attempt to shed their responsibilities by using the courts and appeals process to scare and exhaust the public when clearly, their clients have inflicted different kinds of injuries to, or have gravely infringed on the rights of, the public. The trick here is, when these companies refuse responsibility, the only option left to the injured party is litigation. Due to the highly possible lengthy time and exorbitant cost of litigation, most of us would retreat and suffer in silence. Indeed, nine out of ten Ghanaians would have already given up on this Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd Vs Doreen A. hit-and-refuse-responsibility case. For most, the case would have never made it to court. Thus, in Ghana, nine out of ten times, corporations like Zoom Alliance Gh Ltd, ECG and The Ghana Water Company are successful in getting away with nearly anything including whatever injuries or (financial) burdens they inflict on the currently powerless and voiceless general public.

What has happened to the consumer advocacy agency in Ghana? Where are we going as a nation when companies, especially those with commercial vehicles like Zoom Alliance and GPRTU, seem to enjoy a policy of unchecked compliance as it relates to having adequate insurance and protections for consumers and the general public whom these companies interact with on a daily basis in the execution of their profit making duties? Companies such as Zoom Alliance who disregard basic rules of engagement such as being adequately insured and providing a fast resolution of accidents they cause must be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate state bodies. Companies which neglect to fulfill promises made in their bid to secure national contracts from our government and/or individual Ghanaians must equally be made to compensate their aggrieved clients and their contracts annulled and license revoked in cases where such drastic measures are necessary to send a signal of zero tolerance for such intentional corporate negligence.

Every day in Ghana, the negligent actions and inactions of companies like Zoom Alliance Gh ltd cause varying levels of harm to consumers in particular and to the public at large. Our social fabric and the public’s sense of security, stability and the rule of law is rattled and weakened every time we the public are made to feel helpless and powerless in the face of such brazen, unchecked and unpunished corporate negligence by companies and government bodies. The impetus of articles like this is to start serious discussions which can lead to some urgently needed changes including the support and empowerment of public/consumer advocacy groups and free legal representation to sections of the general public who cannot afford them in clear-cut cases of corporate negligence and violation of consumer rights. The time to hold these companies responsible for their negligence and compel them to act in good faith is now!

My next piece will be on medical malpractice in Ghana. May the truth, integrity and protection of the rights of the general public strengthen our resolve to achieve excellence and justice at all times. God Bless Our Homeland Ghana!