This supreme court decision extends the ruling on vicarious liability to the advantage of futue claiamnts in cases that would have previously failed.The court ruled that Morrisons was "vicariously liable" for Mr Khan's actions.It has broadened the law which holds employers vicariously liable for the acts of their employees who commit a crime whilst at work.Previously an employer could argue that an employee was acting for entirely personal reasons - "on a frolic of their own" if they committed a crime. This judgement widens the rules on vicarious liability and those circumstances where a company can be held liable for the actions of an individual member of staff.
Morrisons is liable for the actions of a staff member who physically attacked a customer, Supreme Court has ruled. Khan was working at Morrisons when he assaulted Mohamud.This ruling makes it easier to hold the employer liable. The court had to consider two key points - the nature of the job entrusted to Mr Khan, and whether there was a sufficient connection between the role and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held responsible. "The court found that the nature of the job was to be viewed broadly," our correspondent said."In this case it was Mr Khan's job to attend to customers and respond to their inquiries. His response to Mr Mohamud's inquiry with abuse was inexcusable, but interacting with customers was within the scope of his job."