Supreme Court clarifies when an employer is liable for the actions of an employee

Posted 03/03/2016 By: Michael Wangermann

The Supreme Court has reviewed the test for ‘vicarious liability’, ie where an employer has to take financial responsibility for the actions of an employee or someone in an employment-like relationship.

In the case of Cox v the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Mrs Cox was working in a prison kitchen assisted by prisoners. She was injured as a the result of a negligent act by a prisoner. The Court decided that although the prisoner was not an employee, the prisoner was being asked by the MoJ to work in a manner ‘akin to employment’ as part of the organisation of the prison.

In Mohamud v Morrisons, the Court decided that an employer was vicariously liable for a violent assault by one of its employees on a customer. Employers have historically tried to argue that such a deliberate assault was a decision solely of the attacker for which they should not be liable. The Court considered the guidance on what is considered a close connection to the job and to identify what the Court called “the essence of the test”. The outcome was that the nature of the job should be considered in a broad context and consideration should also be given to whether it was appropriate, in view of the connection of the job and the wrongful act, to make an employer liable. Here the defendant employee’s job was to attend to customers and the gross abuse of that position in order to attack Mr Mohamud did not stop Morrisons being liable for his actions.

Michael Wangermann, a personal injury specialist at Ashtons Legal, says: “These cases are both helpful where someone is injured but the wrongdoer is unlikely to have the funds or be insured in their own right to compensate for the injuries. The cases show that the injured party can proceed with a claim against an insured employer in cases where the injury incident is closely connected to the job the wrongdoer was being asked to do, whether this was a paid or unpaid job.”