Tracy Smyth welcomes the court's common sense approach to the doctrine of vicarious liability
The Court of Appeal has considered vicarious liability twice this year and the law continues to develop. In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC 2014 EWCA Civ 116, [2014] 2 All ER 990 the Court of Appeal refused to uphold a sufficient “close proximity” between a sales assistant's role and an assault, and therefore refused to impose vicarious liability on the employer simply by virtue of the employer/employee relationship and the fact that part of the role of a sales assistant is to interact with customers.
The Background of Mohamud
The defendant's employee carried out a "brutal and unprovoked" attack on the claimant customer, when he attended Morrison's service station. Although in the first instance the judge correctly held that the relationship of employer/employee could give rise to vicarious liability in appropriate cases, he found that the assault was not so closely connected to the employment that it would be fair and just to hold Morrisons vicariously liable for Mr Khan's actions.
The lead judgment from Lord Justice Treacy
