i) The principle of law identified in the question relates to vicarious liability. The vicarious liability principle simply states that an employer is liable for damage caused to another person by his employee, while the employee was carrying out his work (or while the employee was in the course of employment). The scenario relates to employment contract. The issues for determination are: a. Whether or not Zinto Breweries are vicariously liable for the tort of Kojo Adams namely the injury to Kosaa b. Whether or not Kojo Adams must bear his own tort for being on the frolic of his own. The principle applies whether the injury was to an outsider or to a fellow employee. The employer is liable even though he was not in any way at fault. So far as the law is concerned, the employer and employee are regarded as associated parties in the business in which both are engaged. The policy basis of the legal principle is to provide the injured person with a defendant who is likely to be able to pay damages which the court may award. The principle does not become applicable if the employee acts outside of the contractual duties. There are, however, instances such as the employer being liable in spite of the fact that the employee was acting improperly, if the act was, even so, part of his contractual duties. (4 marks)

ii) In the circumstance of the facts of the scenario in the question, the following matters arise: Kojo Adams is an employee of the Zinto Breweries Ltd. and he drives the company’s van. From the facts of the case, the journey during which he carried a child’s coffin to a relative was not authorized. That the journey was not converted into an authorized journey merely because Kojo Adam performed some small act for the benefit of his employer by picking those beer barrels. It, therefore, means that injury to Kosaa when the van was involved in the accident cannot make the employer liable. That the chances of Kosaa succeeding in her action against the employer, Zinto Breweries Ltd., are slim because Kojo Adams acted outside of his contractual duties. (4 marks)

iii) Kojo Adams will be personally liable for the injury of Kosaa. He could be liable to both specific and general damages. The company Zinto cannot be vicariously liable in this circumstances. (2 marks)