UK: Morrisons Supermarkets Not Vicariously Liable For An Employee’s Attack On Customer

In February 2014, the Court of Appeal ("COA") determined that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who assaulted a customer. The COA considered the House of Lords decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Limited [2002] 1 AC 215 and the requirement that there be a sufficiently close connection with the employment. The COA did not believe this requirement was satisfied.

Ahmed Mohamud ("AM") was a customer of Morrisons. On 15 March 2008 he visited the petrol station and enquired as to whether it would be possible to print some documents from a USB stick which he had. Morrisons' employee, Amjid Khan is reported to have responded in an abusive way and used racist language. He followed AM out to his car, opened the passenger door and shouted further abuse at AM. He then proceeded to punch AM in the head and punched and kicked him outside of the car.

The COA considered the case of Lister and other case law on vicarious liability. It observed that the case law makes clear that careful attention must be paid to the closeness of the connection between the employee's wrongdoing and the duties he is employed to perform. The COA found that the mere fact that employment provided the opportunity, setting, time and place for the tort to occur was not necessarily sufficient to attach vicarious liability on Morrisons. Some factor which went beyond simply interaction between the employee and the victim is required. Lister and the cases which followed had considered factors like the granting of authority, the furtherance of the employer's aims, the inherence of friction or confrontation in the employment and the additional risk of the kind of wrong occurring.

Whilst Khan's actions were described in the original judgement as "brutal and unprovoked" and the COA expressed sympathy for AM, mere contact between an employee and a customer which is authorised by an employer was not enough to render Morrisons vicariously liable.

Ahmed Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2014] EWCA Civ 116

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.