Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc

The employer is not vicariously liable for the employee's assault because the duties imposed on the employee did not involve authority over customers or keeping order, and the assault was committed purely for reasons of the employee's own, outside the scope of employment. Mere opportunity or interaction is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ahmed Mohamud; Respondent: WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Intentional Torts, Scope of Employment
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Intentional Torts Scope of Employment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Mohamud

Appellant

WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc is vicariously liable for an assault committed by its employee on the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The employer is not vicariously liable for the employee's assault because the duties imposed on the employee did not involve authority over customers or keeping order, and the assault was committed purely for reasons of the employee's own, outside the scope of employment. Mere opportunity or interaction is insufficient; a closer connection is required.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed