A RECENT decision from the Supreme Court has extended the potential liability of employers for the actions of their employees.

Until now it seemed clear that employers would not be responsible and therefore liable to pay compensation for the consequences of their employees’ actions, unless the employee was properly engaged “in the course of their employment” at the time.

So for example, if a bouncer employed by a nightclub assaulted an individual whilst carrying out his security role, and the individual sued for damages, the nightclub would almost certainly carry vicarious liability and have to pay compensation to that individual.

A valid defence could be, however, that the employee was ‘on a mission of their own’ and the assault was totally unconnected with their work, so no employer liability followed.

The case What therefore is the position today if an employee causes harm to an individual on your property?

Following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets Plc it may be much more difficult to claim that the employer is not vicariously liable.

Mr Mohamud brought a claim against Morrisons following an assault on him on the petrol forecourt.

He stopped at the petrol station, went into the sales kiosk and asked the Morrison employee, Mr Khan, if it was possible to print off some documents from a USB stick.

Khan refused the request in an offensive manner and in the exchange of words which followed he used racist, abusive and violent language towards Mo- hamud and ordered him to leave.

He then followed Mohamud as he walked back to his car, subjected him to a serious physical attack by opening the car door and punching him in the head, subsequently kicking and punching him on the ground.

But how could that be viewed as part of Khan’s job, thus making the employer liable for his violent actions?

The Court reasoned that the job of the employee in question was to attend to customers and respond to their enquiries.

They concluded there had been an unbroken sequence of events between the employee’s response to the claimant’s initial enquiry and his following him on to the forecourt ordering him never to return and reinforcing this with violence.

Therefore there was sufficient connection between the job which Morrisons had entrusted to the employee and the wrongful conduct of that employee.

Morrison’s was held vicariously liable for the assault and had to pay full compensation.

How can employers reduce the risk of liability?

Our advice is that all employers need up to date terms, conditions and policies for all employees.

These can dictate the conduct and types of behaviour that employees are ex- pected to follow during the hours of their employment.

Gross misconduct can be clearly defined, to include any violent or risky conduct.

Induction training and regular appraisals are also key ways of ensuring these terms are followed.

For more information, please contact Kate Gardner, Partner in Clarke Willmott’s Employment and HR team by emailing kate.gardner@ clarkewillmott.com