SEMINAR WEEK 4

EMPLOYER LIABILITY – CIVIL AND CRIMINAL –

FOR WORK RELATED INJURY AND ILLNESS

Q.1 – Vicarious Liability

What do you understand by the term ‘vicarious liability’?

Has the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Mohamud v WM

Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 varied in any way the
‘close connection’ test of vicarious liability as set out by the House of
Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215?

Vicarious Liability- the standards in increase for what employers are

responsible for means that businesses have to be careful who they
employ
For example: if another employee carried out something in the work
place which harmed another individual, the employer is still
responsible- As seen in the Morrison v Supermarket case.

Facts of case
- Mohamud used a petrol station kiosk and approached a member
of staff with a question
- The employee responded in an aggressive manner and demanded
that Mohamud leave immediately.
- As Mohamud left, the employee attacked him
- Mohamud brought action against the supermarket. Claiming it was
VICARIOUS LIABILITY for the assault committed by one of their
employees.
- The trial judge rejected the claim on the basis that there was not
sufficient link between the employees role and the assault.
- However Mohamud appealed

Basis of appeal:
- The basis of Mohamuds appeal was that there should be a new
test with regards to VICARIOUS LIABILITY, that would weigh
whether a reasonable observer would consider the employee to
acting as a representative of an employer. This was an important
consideration as the test had been employed for a significant
amount of time prior to this challenge.

Outcome:
 - The appeal was allowed.
- Court held that the current ‘close connection’ test had been used in
a number of cases at House of Lords/ Supreme court level, and as
a result of this; they did not wish to deviate dramatically from
precedent.
- However. The court felt that a simplification of the test was better
- This required the consideration of the employees functions and
whether there was a sufficient connection between the wrongful
conduct and the employer.
- On the basis the court held that whilst it was a gross abuse of his
position, it was in connection with the business by which he was
employed.
- To conclude, they found Morrisons guilty by VICARIOUS
LIABILITY.

Close connection test: a test used to determine if the actions of the

person or entity and the employment are so closely connected that it
justified to find the defendant vicariously liable.

Q.2 – Civil and Criminal Liability of the Employer for injuries

sustained in the workplace

Fred is employed by Acme plc as a cleaner in the main production area.

However last week he was instructed to help out in the loading bay and
dispatch department which was short-staffed due to a flu epidemic. Fred
was put to work helping to load heavy packing cases on to pallets.

These pallets then were moved by forklift truck into the loading bay and
stacked ready to be taken away by lorry. Fred was given no training in
how to lift these packing cases. Other workers wore back braces but
Fred was not issued with any such equipment. Fred hurt his back when
trying to lift a packing case on to a pallet.

Sid, a lorry driver employed by Dunedin Trucking Ltd was on Acme’s

premises to pick up a delivery. He was walking through the loading bay
to get his paperwork signed when he was hit by a reversing forklift truck.
The truck was driven by George, an Acme employee. Sid suffered
severe head injuries. No steps had been taken by Acme to separate
pedestrians and vehicles within the loading bay.

In relation to the injuries suffered by Fred comment on the potential civil

liability of Acme plc; and
In relation to the injuries suffered by both Fred and Sid, comment on the
potential criminal liability of Acme plc. Consider also whether or not
anyone other than Acme plc could face criminal prosecution.

Potential Civil Liability of Acme plc: Acme plc may be held civilly liable for Fred's
injuries if it is determined that they breached their duty of care towards him. In this
case, Acme instructed Fred to perform tasks outside of his usual duties without
providing proper training or necessary equipment, such as back braces for lifting
heavy packing cases. This failure to provide a safe working environment and
appropriate training may constitute negligence on the part of Acme plc. As a result,
Fred suffered a back injury while carrying out tasks assigned to him by his employer.

It is the employers duty to take reasonable care for the health, safety and welfare of
employees

The employer has a duty to enforce safety measures, as seen in General

Cleaning contracts v Christmas 1953, where House of Lords held that there is a
need for safety equipment and requirement of harnesses

In this instance, the employer was aware that their employee was not trained
in this area, and placed him in that role without any training, therefore they
avaided their duty of care to the employee by placing him in a dangerous area
without sufficient knowledge or training

Potential Criminal Liability of Acme plc:

In relation to the injuries suffered by both Fred and Sid:

Potential Criminal Liability of Acme plc: Acme plc may face criminal liability under
health and safety laws if it is found that they breached their legal duty to ensure the
health, safety, and welfare of their employees and visitors, as outlined in relevant
health and safety regulations. By failing to provide adequate training, equipment,
and a safe working environment, Acme may have violated health and safety
legislation, leading to criminal charges.

Potential Criminal Liability of Individuals: Individuals within Acme plc, such as

supervisors or managers responsible for implementing health and safety procedures,
could also face criminal prosecution if they are found to have directly contributed to
the breaches of health and safety regulations that led to the injuries suffered by Fred
and Sid. This could include charges of gross negligence manslaughter or health and
safety offenses.
In addition, George, the Acme employee who was driving the forklift truck that struck
Sid, may also face criminal prosecution for causing injury by dangerous driving or
other relevant offenses under road traffic laws.

Overall, Acme plc, as well as individuals within the company, may face both civil and
criminal liability for the injuries suffered by Fred and Sid, depending on the specific
circumstances and findings of the investigation.

I would love to volunteer with CAB as it allows me to contribute meaningfully to the surrounding community,
by helping others navigate issues and provide them with the right help and guidance. I have specifically chosen
Perth CAB, to create a local impact and support people within my community. Additionally, I feel this would be
a great opportunity to develop my skills and enable personal growth. The idea of helping others is what
encouraged me to apply, I would be very appreciative of the opportunity to do so.

I am currently attending university. My class schedule until May 17th is Monday 11-6,
Tuesday 9-3 and Thursdays 9-4. I am free all day Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. However, after
the 17th of May, I can volunteer any time and day.

I have excellent communication and teamworking skills which I have developed from my many years of
employment in the hospitality industry. Additionally, I can articulate very well and help individuals understand
information in whatever way works for them. My organisation and prioritisation skills have vastly improved
throughout my academics, which I believe helps me produce better work. I have great IT skills, and can navigate
apps such as Word, PowerPoint and Excel. I developed these skills during my Administration course in 6th year
of high school, where I received an A*. I work great individually or in a team, and I am confident to take
initiative where necessary. I am an extremely fast learner, and I am continuously seeking to increase my skill
set.

I have not had many opportunities to volunteer for organisations, however, when my youngest sister was in
primary school, I would help her fix up the community garden. My current workplace donates to the local
community centre. I have played sports within local teams, where the games brought communities together.
Although, my lack of experience is another contributing factor to my reason for applying, I know I have the skill
set and capability to help other people. Skills of which I have developed by working from the age of 14, whilst
attending school and completing my academics.