Ruling increases retailer liability in assaults by staff
Retailers have been warned they are now more likely to be held liable for assaults by their staff on customers following a Supreme Court ruling.
The case at the centre of the ruling – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc – involved a brutal attack in 2012 by a Morrison’s staff member on a man at the retailer’s Birmingham petrol station. The assault left the victim with epilepsy.
A 2014 Court of Appeal decision found Morrisons not liable because of insufficient connection between the violent assault and staff member’s employment.
However, in a ruling on March 2, the Supreme Court in London overturned that decision, finding Morrisons “vicariously liable” for the attack.
Responding to the decision, Christina Tolvas-Vincent from UK law firm Bond Dickinson LLP said the judgement meant retailers could face an increase in claims from customers.
“Previously, employers in a similar case would be able to argue that the employee was ‘on a frolic of his own’, meaning that they were not liable for a rogue employee’s actions,” she said. “This decision means that retailers are more likely to be held liable for such assaults in the future and may face an increase in claims from customers.”
Ms Tolvas-Vincent said it was important employers are aware of their potential liability and ensure staff are properly supervised.
“While employers don’t need to make changes to employment contracts, they can give themselves further protection by ensuring staff are given training and are clear what to do if they encounter a difficult customer,” she said. “We would also recommend that they investigate a job applicant’s background and take up references before employing them, in order to try to reduce the risks of such an event occurring.
“All these efforts could potentially act in mitigation should an incident occur and go to court.”
“Employers should also have a close look at their insurance policies to see whether these sorts of deliberate acts are excluded from the scope of their public liability insurance.
“Many policies may exclude deliberate acts, and hence, there could well be an issue.”
