Very interesting, I'd like to see a legal opinion on this one,

John

According to the article they accepted they were liable as they offered to pay compensation and the courts ruled that they should pay that amount.

Why would you say "Very interesting, I'd like to see a legal opinion on this one", when it was a supreme court ruling.

The original case was found in against the claimant however it seems to have been overturned on appeal. There is a very good article below on the case and the link between liability and the employee. The employer is nearly always responsible for the acts and omissions of its employee's especialy when those acts can be deemed as "unreasonable" and beating someone up when you are at work...whether they are an employee or not fits in that category. Some rationale as well in the weddle vs wallbank case from 2012

http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm...assault-on-customer.aspx

The Supreme Court Judgement in full is at:-
https://www.supremecourt...c-2014-0087-judgment.pdf

Jay,

Very helpful as usual. looks very much as though the judgment itself does not support the assertion in the article that there has been any step-change in the application of vicarious liability. It always helps to go back to the source,

John

As I often point out Behaviour is also an indicator of competence. Thus I argue that the employer had not properly trained and monitored the employee - no need of vicarious liability therefore.

My interpretation of Vicarious Liability is about foreseeability. However, this case appears to go against the grain and I'm not sure how the employer could be held liable in this case - but there again I'm no legal eagle.

Two things come to my mind;

a) I thought 'strict liability' was removed!
b) What is the Supreme Court's up to! Cpordia Case comes to mind!

Having read the press release (not the judgement) this one seems a lot more straightforward to me. The prisoner was undertaking work on behalf of the prison service, regardless of whether or not he was paid for it or had volunteered to do so. Surprised this one made it as far as the supreme court to be honest. Perhaps some more subtlety to it in the full judgement; I haven't the time read it at present.

Having looked at the judgement, it is definitely a case where there are strong arguments for and against the decision.

On one hand, if a rogue employee assaults a customer and the employer had absolutely no inkling about it, how can the employer be responsible?

On the other, if I went into a shop and was seriously assaulted by a member of staff, I would fully expect the shop to accept responsibility for the injuries I suffered on their property and by their member of staff.

In this case, the assault carried on in the car park, and the employee used the phrase "and don't ever come back here again". This was used by the judge to show that he was making a representation on behalf of his employer and not personally.

Overall, I think that judge probably got this one right - the public have the right to be safe in premises operated by businesses, and if not, the business should be held accountable.