The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases that dealt with the vicarious liability of employers for incidents that took place at work.
Employee’s Extreme Acts
In the first case (Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc) the Supreme Court upheld a damages claim brought by Ahmed Mohamud, an innocent customer who suffered serious head injuries in a savage, unprovoked attack in which he was repeatedly kicked and punched by Amjid Khan, a petrol kiosk attendant who was employed by Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc at a branch in Birmingham. The Court found that the supermarket giant was vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s appalling behaviour.
Mr Mohamud had gone to the petrol station to check his tyre pressures but had also asked if he could use its facilities to print out some documents from a USB stick. His request was met by a torrent of racist abuse from Mr Khan, who ordered him to leave and never come back. After pursuing him onto the forecourt, he then kicked him repeatedly as he lay on the floor. Mr Mohamud suffered serious head injuries which resulted in him developing epilepsy.
Mr Mohamud sued Morrisons for damages, but had his claim dismissed by a County Court judge. Dismissing his appeal against that decision, the Court of Appeal had ruled that there was an insufficiently close connection between what Mr Khan was employed to do and his conduct in attacking Mr Mohamud for Morrisons to be held vicariously liable for his actions. Mr Khan had acted ‘purely for reasons of his own, beyond the scope of his employment’. He had inexplicably attacked Mr Mohamud in direct defiance of instructions ‘not to engage in any form of confrontation with a customer, even an angry one’.
Mr Mohamud subsequently died, but his family continued to pursue his case.
In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that there is nothing wrong in the close connection test as such. However, in the present case, the Court had to consider two matters. Firstly, what was the nature of the employee’s job and was there sufficient connection between his field of activities and his wrongful conduct for the employer to be held liable for his actions?
The Court noted that it was part of Mr Khan’s job to attend to customers, to interact with them and to respond to their inquiries. His conduct was inexcusable and it could not be said that he had metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped out from behind the counter.
In ordering Mr Mohamud never to return to the petrol station, Mr Khan was purporting to act in his capacity as a Morrisons’ employee. His motive in launching the attack was irrelevant and it did not matter whether his actions were driven by personal racism rather than a desire to benefit his employer’s business.
The Court’s decision has opened the way for Mr Mohamud’s estate and dependants to seek substantial compensation in respect of his lost earnings and the pain and suffering he endured before his death. The amount of damages payable by Morrisons has yet to be assessed.
The Sort of Relationship Which May Give Rise to Vicarious Liability
The second case (Cox v Ministry of Justice) serves as a reminder that a relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liability.
Mrs Cox worked as a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea. She supervised prisoners who worked in the kitchen alongside the catering staff. In the course of taking supplies to the kitchen stores, one of the prisoners, Mr Inder, accidentally dropped a sack of rice on Mrs Cox’s back, causing her injury.
She brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
The County Court found that Mr Inder had been negligent but dismissed the claim on the basis that his relationship with the prison service was not akin to that between an employee and an employer. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, however.
The Supreme Court dismissed the MoJ’s appeal, finding that Mrs Cox was injured as a result of Mr Inder’s negligence in carrying out activities assigned to him. The relationship was such that the prison service could be held vicariously liable to her.
In reaching its decision, the Court gave guidance on the sort of relationship which may give rise to vicarious liability in cases where there is no contract of employment:
In this case, the inmates who were working in the prison kitchen were integrated into the operation of the prison. The tasks assigned to them formed an integral part of the activities of the prison in furtherance of its aims, in particular the provision of meals for prisoners. The prison service placed such prisoners in a position where there was a risk that they might be negligent in carrying out the assigned duties whilst working under the direction of prison staff.
Employers are advised to be vigilant and to act swiftly to deal with any unwanted conduct on the part of employees towards customers or other members of staff. Staff handbooks and policies should be clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Workers who are not under contract should be made aware of health and safety procedures and other workplace policies and procedures to which they are expected to adhere in carrying out their function.