SUPREME COURT UNITED KINGDOM
AM MOHAMUD (IN SUBSTITUTION FOR A MOHAMUD (DECEASED)) – Appellant
Versus
WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court reaffirmed the close connection test for vicarious liability. (Para 1 , 9 , 47) |
| 2. the evolving nature of vicarious liability was examined. (Para 2 , 7 , 10 , 51) |
| 3. the claimant's encounter with the employee escalated to violence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
[1] Vicarious liability in tort requires, first, a relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer, and secondly, a connection between that relationship and the wrongdoers act or default, such as to make it just that the defendant should be held legally responsible to the claimant for the consequences of the wrongdoers conduct. In this case the wrongdoer was employed by the defendant, and so there is no issue about the first requirement. The issue in the appeal is whether there was sufficient connection between the wrongdoers employment and his conduct towards the claimant to make the defendant legally responsible. By contrast, the case of Cox v. Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, which was heard by the same division of the court at the same time, is concerned with the first requirement. The judgments are separate beca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.