Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc
A supermarket was vicariously liable for an assault by an employee on a customer, because there was a sufficient connection between his job and the assault.
Facts
Mr Mohamud went into a petrol station kiosk at a Morrisons supermarket and asked if he could print some documents. Mr Khan, an employee whose job was to serve customers, responded with racist and abusive language and told him to leave. Mr Mohamud went back to his car, and Mr Khan followed him and attacked him, telling him never to come back to the petrol station. Mr Mohamud sued Morrisons.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Morrisons was vicariously liable. Lord Toulson said that the court must consider what functions or field of activities have been entrusted by the employer to the employee, and then 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. Mr Khan's job was to attend to customers and respond to their inquiries, and his conduct, though gross, was an unbroken sequence of events within the field of activities assigned to him. His motive was irrelevant.
Related cases on employers' liability and vicarious liability
- Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] AC 355
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
- Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] AC 660
- Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366
- Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
