The UK Supreme Court has decided a second case this week related to an employer's vicarious liability for the actions of its employees. This case of Mr Mohamud, now deceased, is a harrowing case of a Somali man who pulled up to a petrol station run by Morrison Supermarkets and asked for some documents to be printed off from a USB stick. The Morrison's employee, a Mr Khan, subjected the appellant to a torrent of abuse, followed him to his car, and assaulted him. Could the employer be held liable for the actions of Mr Khan, which were extreme and certainly not part of his duties or job description? 

The trial judge, according to the UKSC, found that, "In a detailed and impressive judgment, the judge reviewed the principal authorities. He expressed great sympathy for the claimant but concluded that the company was not vicariously liable for Mr Khan’s unprovoked assault. His principal reason was that although Mr Khan’s job involved some interaction with customers and members of the public who attended the kiosk, it involved nothing more than serving and helping them."

The Court of Appeal came to a similar conclusion and the UKSC summarised the position from the courts thus, "The main points made in the judgments were that Mr Khan’s duties were circumscribed. He was not given duties involving a clear possibility of confrontation or placed in a situation where an outbreak of violence was likely. The fact that his employment involved interaction with customers was not enough to make his employers liable for his use of violence towards the claimant."

The UK Supreme Court has now upheld the appeal and overturned the findings of the previous cases. Lord Toulson, giving the lead judgement in a unanimous decision, said that the correct application of the law was two-fold: firstly, what was the nature of the employee's job and, secondly, was there 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?

Lord Toulson continued to consider the law in the present case and looked at the continuous link between the start of the employee's conduct and the violent end:

"In the present case it was Mr Khan’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 argued by the respondent and accepted by the judge that there ceased to be any significant connection between Mr Khan’s employment and his behaviour towards the claimant when he came out from behind the counter and followed the claimant onto the forecourt. I disagree for two reasons. First, I do not consider that it is right to regard him as having metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped from behind the counter. He was following up on what he had said to the claimant. It was a seamless episode. Secondly, when Mr Khan 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 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 is just that as between them and the claimant, they should be held responsible for their employee’s abuse of it."

The decision also contains a useful summary of developments in the law in this area:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-judgment.pdf 

The Supreme Court's summary is available on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch