Flashcards Studio

GlideGo, a Transport Network Service (TNS) platform, contracts with drivers as independent contractors. Driver Mira signs in-app as a "GlideGo Pro Driver" and agrees to GlideGo's safety policies, including displaying a GlideGo badge. While transporting a rider through a GlideGo ride, Mira runs a red light and injures a pedestrian, Kai. Kai sues GlideGo for damages, arguing that Mira was acting within the scope of her authority as GlideGo's agent because she accepted rides and performed duties under GlideGo's policies. GlideGo contends there is no agency because Mira is an independent contractor and GlideGo does not exercise control over her driving. (a) Does a principal–agent relationship exist between GlideGo and Mira, considering apparent authority or agency by estoppel? (b) If an agency relationship exists, was Mira’s act within the scope of Mira’s authority as GlideGo’s agent? (c) What is GlideGo’s potential liability to Kai given the possible agency findings?