Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Conduct of employee must be related to relationship with employer to apportion vicarious liability - (02 Mar 2016) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-judgment.pdf">Mr A M Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The British Supreme Court, deciding claims raising questions on vicarious liability of the employer, found that the conduct of the individual has to be related to that employer-employee relationship before vicarious liability can be imposed on the employer.

In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0089-judgment.pdf">Cox v. Ministry of Justice</a>, the Appellant, a prison warden, was injured when one of the prisoners dropped a sack of rice onto her back. Mrs. Cox then brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice, however the same was dismissed by the County Court on the ground that though the prisoner who dropped the rice was liable, but there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the Ministry. The Supreme Court held otherwise. It noted that prisoners working in prison kitchens were placed in positions where the risk of negligent acts was high. Such work also not purely rehabilitation, instead they were integrated into the operation of the prison itself. Payment of a wage was not essential for the imposition of vicarious liability.

In another connected case, the Claimant was attacked by an employee of the Respondent-petrol station, having never done anything aggressive or abusive. The trial court had ruled that the employee was working for Respondent at the time of tortious conduct and the "close connection" test could be appropriately applied. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding of vicarious liability for the Respondent. It clarified that the test would be applied in two stages: first, the function or field of activities entrusted by the employer to the employee would have to be viewed broadly; and second, the court must decide if there is sufficient connection between the position the employee was employed for and the wrongful conduct - which would make it right for the employer to be held liable. Since the employee at the petrol station was tasked with attending to customers and responding to inquiries, his conduct was within the function envisaged by Respondent. His aggressive conduct leading up to the attack on the Claimant formed an unbroken chain of events. Motive for the attack, personal racism rather than a desire to benefit Respondent's business, was irrelevant.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : united kingdom, supreme court, vicarious liability, employer</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>