Facts
- Mr Mohamud visited a petrol station operated by WM Morrison Supermarkets plc and approached Mr Khan, a customer service assistant, to inquire about printing a document.
- During the interaction, Mr Khan became abusive, used racial slurs, and physically assaulted Mr Mohamud inside the station’s kiosk.
- The incident originated from a customer service context but escalated into violence.
- Mr Mohamud brought proceedings against Morrisons, claiming the company was vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s assault.
- At first instance, the court found Morrisons was not liable, treating Mr Khan’s conduct as an independent, personal act outside his employment. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
- Mr Mohamud appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether Morrisons could be held vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s assault on Mr Mohamud, given the connection between the employee’s duties and the wrongful act.
- Whether the ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability was satisfied in the circumstances of the assault.
Decision
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held Morrisons vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s actions.
- The Court clarified the two-stage test for vicarious liability: first, defining the employee’s field of activities; second, considering if there was a sufficient connection between those activities and the wrongful act.
- Mr Khan’s job involved serving customers and maintaining order at the kiosk, encompassing interactions such as the one with Mr Mohamud.
- The assault occurred during, and was closely linked to, the performance of his duties, forming an “unbroken sequence of events” beginning with the customer’s inquiry.
- The Court found that the wrongful act, although unauthorized and criminal, was sufficiently connected to Mr Khan’s employment to make Morrisons liable.
Legal Principles
- Vicarious liability requires a close connection between the employee’s assigned duties and the tortious act.
- The test is not whether the employer authorized the act, but whether the act is sufficiently related to the employment.
- The fact that conduct is criminal or unauthorized does not preclude employer liability if the connection to employment remains strong.
- The field of activities entrusted to the employee and the sequence of events are critical to establishing liability.
- The decision expanded the understanding of ‘close connection’, clarifying its application to workplace violence arising from the context of employment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc expanded the scope of vicarious liability, holding employers responsible for employees’ torts if the acts are sufficiently connected to their employment, even if criminal or unauthorized, provided they arise from the assigned field of activities.
