Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc is a landmark case in UK tort law dealing with the principle of vicarious liability, particularly focusing on the liability of an employer for wrongful acts, including assault, committed by its employee. The case addresses the extent to which an employer can be held responsible for tortious actions of its employees and refines the “close connection” test for vicarious liability. This case is pivotal in understanding how courts assess the relationship between an employee’s wrongful conduct and their employment, especially when the conduct is a clear abuse of their role.
Facts of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc
The facts of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc arose from an incident at a petrol station and kiosk owned by WM Morrison Supermarkets plc in Small Heath, Birmingham. The claimant, Mr Mohamud, attended the premises and asked an employee, Mr Amjid Khan, if he could print documents from a USB stick. Mr Khan responded rudely and aggressively refused the request.
When Mr Mohamud protested the refusal, Mr Khan escalated the situation by using racist and threatening language and ordered Mr Mohamud to leave the premises immediately. As Mr Mohamud began to walk back to his car, Mr Khan followed him and violently assaulted him by punching him on the left temple. Importantly, Mr Mohamud had not displayed any aggressive or abusive behaviour during the interaction.
Following the assault, Mr Mohamud commenced legal proceedings against WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, arguing that the supermarket was vicariously liable for the wrongful and criminal actions of its employee, Mr Khan.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc was whether the supermarket could be held vicariously liable for the assault committed by Mr Khan. More specifically, the case questioned how the courts should apply the test for vicarious liability when an employee commits an intentional tort such as assault.
Prior to this case, the dominant legal approach to vicarious liability involved the “close connection” test. This test requires courts to establish whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s wrongful act and their employment to justify holding the employer liable. However, the case also raised whether a new or refined test was necessary to determine when an employee’s actions can be regarded as carried out “in the course of employment,” particularly when those actions involve misconduct or criminal acts.
Procedural History
At first instance, the trial judge rejected Mr Mohamud’s claim, ruling that there was not a sufficient connection between the employee’s role and the assault to impose vicarious liability on WM Morrison Supermarkets plc.
The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the trial judge’s decision, maintaining that the assault fell outside the scope of Mr Khan’s employment duties.
Dissatisfied with these rulings, Mr Mohamud further appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately allowed the appeal, providing important clarification and refinement of the law of vicarious liability.
Supreme Court Decision in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc was unanimous and marked a significant moment in the development of vicarious liability law. The court reaffirmed the “close connection” test but emphasised the need to simplify and clarify its application rather than replace it with a new standard.
The Test for Vicarious Liability
The court restated that the test for vicarious liability involves assessing whether the employee’s wrongful conduct is sufficiently connected to the functions or duties assigned to them by the employer. The court explained that the key question is whether the tort was committed while the employee was acting in the ordinary course of their employment or while performing tasks entrusted to them by the employer.
In this context, the court focused on two main factors:
- The nature of the employee’s job and the functions entrusted to them: The court examined the specific role Mr Khan had at the petrol station kiosk, which involved dealing directly with customers.
- The connection between the employee’s wrongful conduct and the employer’s business: The court considered whether the assault was linked to the business context in which Mr Khan was employed.
Application of the Test
The court concluded that although Mr Khan’s assault on Mr Mohamud was a serious and unjustified act, it was sufficiently connected to the employee’s role and the employer’s business to justify holding WM Morrison Supermarkets plc vicariously liable. The reasoning was that Mr Khan’s role involved interaction with customers, and the assault arose out of a dispute that originated in the course of such interaction.
The court also rejected the argument that the assault was a “frolic” or a completely independent act outside the scope of employment. Instead, the court found that the assault was an abuse of Mr Khan’s position, but one closely enough connected to his employment to trigger employer liability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc firmly establishes the modern approach to vicarious liability in cases of employee wrongdoing. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that an employer can be liable for wrongful acts of employees when those acts are closely connected to the employee’s role and functions within the business, even if the acts involve serious misconduct like assault.
The case highlights the importance for employers to recognise their potential liability and to implement robust procedures to minimise risks of employee misconduct. For claimants, Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc affirms that they may seek compensation from employers for tortious acts by employees within the scope of their employment.
