What is Vicarious Liability?
In general terms and in an employment context, Vicarious Liability is where an employer can be sued for the actions of an employee whether or not those actions are supported by the employer. It can become quite complex as case law has shown. When ruling on such matters, one of the key issues for a Court to consider is the relationship between the wrongdoer and the organisation. It doesn’t even have to be an employee – potentially it could be a volunteer.
What is Vicarious Liability?
In general terms and in an employment context, Vicarious Liability is where an employer can be sued for the actions of an employee whether or not those actions are supported by the employer. It can become quite complex as case law has shown. When ruling on such matters, one of the key issues for a Court to consider is the relationship between the wrongdoer and the organisation. It doesn’t even have to be an employee – potentially it could be a volunteer.
A recent case shows how an employer may be liable for an employees’ behaviour however bad it may be, which seems to be grossly unfair in my opinion where such behaviour is totally against the ethos of the organisation.
In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016], Mohamud entered a Morrison’s petrol station kiosk. Mr Khan was employed by Morrison’s to attend to petrol pumps and serve customers (interact with customers). Khan was rude to Mohamud, something Mohamud protested about. Mr Khan then responded with foul, racist and threatening language. Furthermore, before Mohamud could drive off, Khan came onto the forecourt and in a threatening manner and told Mohamud never to return. As Mohamed got out of the car, Khan physically assaulted him. While all this was taking place, the Supervisor tried to intervene but to no avail. Khan took no notice.
Inevitably it ended up in Court. The County Court had sympathy for Mohamud but ruled that Morrison’s were not vicariously liable. The reasons they gave were that Khan was employed to attend pumps and service customers… only.
Therefore there was not a close enough link between what he was employed to do and what he chose to do. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that Morrison’s were liable. Part of Khans’ duties was to interact with customers. I’m not sure that the abusive behaviour was what Morrison’s had in mind when they employed Khan! The Court went on to point out that in relation to the order to Mohamed to never return, he was purporting to act out his employer’s business on their premises.
Such cases show that there is no hard and fast rule about vicarious liability so the message here is be very careful and wherever possible, identify risks and address any issues where potential claims may be made against you as an employer. Sometimes, however hard you try to do the right thing and train your staff correctly, one moment of someone being irresponsible can result in a huge negative affect of the entire organisation.