Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC, Court of Appeal, 2014

Facts

The appellant, of Somali descent, brought a claim for personal injury after he was brutally attacked. Mr Mohamud drove into the respondent's petrol station kiosk to ask if he could print some documents that were on a USB stick.

The respondent's employee refused the appellant permission in an abusive fashion including the use of racist language. As the appellant returned to his vehicle he was physically assaulted by the respondent's employee. The appellant argued that the respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.

Held

In order for vicarious liability to be found, the court had to consider a two part test:

1. Consider the relationship between the wrongdoer and the person alleged to be liable

2. Whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the wrongdoing and the employment so that it is fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable

The appellant easily proved the first stage through the employer/employee relationship. However he failed to prove the second stage; although the opportunity for the assault arose out of the employment, the reason for the assault was entirely the employees own and not further to the employers aims. Accordingly there was not a sufficiently close connection to make it fair and just to hold the employer liable.

Susan Elaine Cox v Ministry of Justice, Court of Appeal, 2014

Facts

The claimant, who was working as a catering manager at Swansea Prison, suffered an injury resulting from the negligence of a prisoner who was carrying out paid work under her direct supervision. The prisoner, who was off loading a delivery, had dropped a sack of food onto the back of the claimant as she bent down to attend to a spillage. The prisoner was paid GBP 11.55 per week for his work. The claimant sought damages from the Ministry of Justice who employed her on the basis they were vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner.

Held

At first instance the court dismissed the claim; however the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

It was found that the respondent had a relationship akin to employment with the prisoner. By employing the prisoner to carry out the activity, it had created a risk that the tort would be committed by the prisoner, and the prisoner was largely under the control of the employer. Accordingly, the prison was found to be vicariously liable.

What can we learn?

  • The two stage test must take centre stage when considering whether a relationship establishing vicarious liability it made out
  • In Mohamud, the actions of the employee were too remote from the employee duties. Thankfully this decision was made; if the opposite decision had been made, then every case where an employee was required to engage with the public, his employer would be liable for any assault that followed from such an interaction
  • In Cox, although there was no contract of employment, there was a sufficiently close relationship from which the culpability flowed
  • These cases demonstrate there is a fine line which divides when vicarious liability is found. The case of Cox may significantly expand the responsibilities of public bodies, such as prison authorities

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.