When supermarkets attack!

[Gob]

Morrisons supermarket is liable for the actions of a staff member who physically attacked a customer, the Supreme Court has ruled.

According to court documents, Amjid Khan was working at a Morrisons petrol station in Birmingham in 2008 when he punched and kicked Ahmed Mohamud.

Mr Mohamud died in 2014 of an illness not related to the incident, and his family continued his legal fight.

Morrisons said Mr Khan had been sacked and that it had agreed to pay damages.

The court ruled that Morrisons was "vicariously liable" for Mr Khan's actions.

The attack happened in Small Heath, Birmingham, in March 2008, as Mr Mohamud was on his way to London for a demonstration against the war in Somalia.

At the petrol station he asked staff to print some documents he had stored on a USB memory stick.

Court documents say he asked this as a "favour", and Mr Khan responded by being abusive and using a racial slur.

Mr Mohamud was not abusive in return, but the documents say Mr Khan followed him to his car, shouted more abuse, punched him twice in the head then leapt on him and subjected him to a "brutal attack involving punches and kicks while Mr Mohamud was curled up on the petrol station forecourt".

In his case for compensation, Mr Mohamud claimed he suffered psychological injuries and a head injury which led to epilepsy.

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said 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."

In a statement, Morrisons said: "When this appalling incident happened we were horrified and dismissed Amjid Khan.

"We then offered a settlement option to Mr Mohamud but he and his legal team wanted to progress a case which involved widening the rules on vicarious liability - where a company can be held liable for the actions of an individual member of staff.

"While the Supreme Court has not changed the law on vicarious liability we accept that it has now said we should now pay the previously agreed damages."

The ruling gave no detail of any criminal proceedings which might have resulted from the incident.

[Long Run]

Deep pocket doctrine. You'd likely get a different result here. The store employee was obviously acting outside the scope of his authority (even though the bit of the opinion we see tries to dance around this). If the store acted reasonably in hiring and supervising Khan, then it is unfair to have them pay because how are they supposed to know/control a person who suddenly flies off the handle. On the other hand, Mohamud goes into the store and is assaulted by a store employee. As between the store having to pay and try to seek repayment from the asshole they hired, and Mohamud getting no compensation, it is not unreasonable to leave the store with the bill.

[kmccune]

The customer is never right right nowadays it seems ,some people come to this country with the the intention of making a little "stan " never seeming to realize they are guests here till they are citizens and should be civil in our country ,not turn it into a replica of the the hole they left .Hate to be trumpish ,but "be nice - not assholes "

[MajGenl.Meade]

Mr Khan responded by being abusive and using a racial slur

So, a Khan used a racial slur against a Muhamed?

I'd really like to know what that was!

[Scooter]

The store employee was obviously acting outside the scope of his authority (even though the bit of the opinion we see tries to dance around this). If the store acted reasonably in hiring and supervising Khan, then it is unfair to have them pay

That's what I would have thought, particularly when the employee's actions are clearly criminal. Employer liability in similar cases here has always rested on negligent hiring and/or supervision.

[Lord Jim]

Perhaps the store failed to cover "do not punch or kick the customers" in the training process...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Morrison's failed to paint all their customers orange