Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets

In two conjoined cases concerning vicarious liability in tort, the Supreme Court has further muddied the water as far as the “close connection” test in Lister v Hesley Hall 1 is concerned. The “close connection” test asks: first, whether the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability; and, secondly, whether the tort is sufficiently closely connected to such relationship to make it fair and just to hold the defendant liable.

By contrast, Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc 4 (“Mohamud”) was less straightforward than it may appear from the judgment and is the focus of this Comment. This case was concerned with the second stage. Mr Mohamud, the victim, stopped at a petrol station run by Morrison Supermarkets, the defendant, and approached the kiosk for a favour. The kiosk receptionist, Mr Khan, replied in a rude manner and used foul, racist and threatening language to order Mr Mohamud to leave. Mr Khan followed 
Mr Mohamud to his car, opened the front passenger door, told him in threatening words never to come back, and punched him. Mr Khan punched Mr Mohamud again when the latter got out of the car to close the passenger door.