MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC [2016] UKSC
FACTS:-
The Claimant was a customer in a petrol station, which was owned by the Defendant. He enquired of the staff whether it would be possible to print some documents from a USB stick that he was carrying. He got into an altercation with one of the members of staff, who ordered him out of the premises, followed him to his car, threatened him and then assaulted him. The trial judge concluded that the company was not vicariously liable for the unprovoked assault. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The matter came before the UK Supreme Court, which heard the appeal at the same time as the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Toulson giving the lead judgment, considered the origins and development of vicarious liability. There was no issue in relation to the fact that the assault had been committed by an employee of the Defendant. The issue was whether what the employee did satisfied the “close connection” test required, the second limb of the test to establish vicarious liability. In the simplest terms, the court had to consider two matters. The first question was what functions or “field of activities” had been entrusted by the employer to the employee, or, in everyday language, what was the nature of his job. Secondly, the court had to decide whether there was sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable under the principle of social justice.
There were a number of features here, that would lead to the close connection test being satisfied.
Firstly, in the present case it was the employee’s job to attend to customers and to respond to their inquiries. His conduct in answering the claimant’s request in a foul mouthed way and ordering him to leave was inexcusable but within the “field of activities” assigned to him. What happened thereafter was an unbroken sequence of events. It was a seamless episode.
Secondly, when the employee followed the claimant back to his car and opened the front passenger door, he again told the Claimant in threatening words that he was never to come back to the petrol station. This was not something personal between them; it was an order to keep away from his employer’s premises, which he reinforced by violence. In giving such an order he was purporting to act about his employer’s business. It was a gross abuse of his position, but it was in connection with the business in which he was employed to serve customers. His employers entrusted him with that position and it was just that as between them and the Claimant, they should be held responsible for their employee’s abuse of it.
The employee’s motive was irrelevant.
FACTS:-
The Claimant was a customer in a petrol station, which was owned by the Defendant. He enquired of the staff whether it would be possible to print some documents from a USB stick that he was carrying. He got into an altercation with one of the members of staff, who ordered him out of the premises, followed him to his car, threatened him and then assaulted him. The trial judge concluded that the company was not vicariously liable for the unprovoked assault. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The matter came before the UK Supreme Court, which heard the appeal at the same time as the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Toulson giving the lead judgment, considered the origins and development of vicarious liability. There was no issue in relation to the fact that the assault had been committed by an employee of the Defendant. The issue was whether what the employee did satisfied the “close connection” test required, the second limb of the test to establish vicarious liability. In the simplest terms, the court had to consider two matters. The first question was what functions or “field of activities” had been entrusted by the employer to the employee, or, in everyday language, what was the nature of his job. Secondly, the court had to decide whether there was sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable under the principle of social justice.
There were a number of features here, that would lead to the close connection test being satisfied.
Firstly, in the present case it was the employee’s job to attend to customers and to respond to their inquiries. His conduct in answering the claimant’s request in a foul mouthed way and ordering him to leave was inexcusable but within the “field of activities” assigned to him. What happened thereafter was an unbroken sequence of events. It was a seamless episode.
Secondly, when the employee followed the claimant back to his car and opened the front passenger door, he again told the Claimant in threatening words that he was never to come back to the petrol station. This was not something personal between them; it was an order to keep away from his employer’s premises, which he reinforced by violence. In giving such an order he was purporting to act about his employer’s business. It was a gross abuse of his position, but it was in connection with the business in which he was employed to serve customers. His employers entrusted him with that position and it was just that as between them and the Claimant, they should be held responsible for their employee’s abuse of it.
The employee’s motive was irrelevant.