“Supermarket liable for employee's racist assault on customer”
Mr Mohamud, a customer at a Morrison's petrol station, asked about printing facilities and was met with foul and racist abuse from Mr Khan, an employee. Khan then followed Mohamud outside and violently assaulted him in the car park. Morrison's argued they were not liable as Khan was acting outside his employment.
Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's unprovoked criminal assault on a customer when the employee was acting contrary to his instructions and job requirements.
Morrison's was vicariously liable for Khan's assault. The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed, and vicarious liability was established.
This case significantly expanded the scope of vicarious liability in employment law, making it easier for claimants to hold employers liable for employees' wrongful acts even when those acts are criminal and contrary to instructions.
You're reading the free summary of Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] AC 677
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.