Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2014] EWCA Civ 116
The facts: A Somali national was racially abused and
viciously attacked by a petrol station shop attendant. The claimant had recently checked his tyre
pressures in the forecourt and then visited the shop to ask if it offered
printing services. He was followed out
and assaulted by the attendant. Could
the attendant’s employer’s be held vicariously liable?
The decision: No.
The attendants job description involved serving customers and the
assault had nothing to do with that role.
The Court applied the two stage test for determining vicarious
liability, as formulated in Lister v
Hesley Hall Limited [2002] 1 AC 215 and Dubai Aluminium Co Limited v Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366. Whilst the employment relationship was
obviously capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, it failed the second
stage in that there was no clear connection between the employment and the
wrongdoing: the employment did not create the risk that materialised, it was
merely incidental.
No comments:
Post a Comment