Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Exactly How Were They Supposed To Stop This Then ?
36 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
It’s not quite so outrageous as you imagine, baz.
Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. I’ve cribbed this bit from the “ACAS” website:
“In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.”
The BBC article does expand a little:
“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. 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."
As with all matters like this, we only get a couple of paragraphs to explain the outcome of a hearing that may have lasted days. It is obvious that the employer cannot control what an employee does every minute of their time on duty and almost certainly could not have prevented this incident (unless they had not employed Mr Khan in the first place in which case they would have demonstrated remarable foresight). However they have liability for their behaviour whilst working for them, especially their behaviour towards their customers. We can argue the finer points of the decision but we don’t have all the facts. The court on this occasion found that Morrisons did shoulder responsibility for Mr Khan’s behaviour.
Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. I’ve cribbed this bit from the “ACAS” website:
“In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.”
The BBC article does expand a little:
“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. 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."
As with all matters like this, we only get a couple of paragraphs to explain the outcome of a hearing that may have lasted days. It is obvious that the employer cannot control what an employee does every minute of their time on duty and almost certainly could not have prevented this incident (unless they had not employed Mr Khan in the first place in which case they would have demonstrated remarable foresight). However they have liability for their behaviour whilst working for them, especially their behaviour towards their customers. We can argue the finer points of the decision but we don’t have all the facts. The court on this occasion found that Morrisons did shoulder responsibility for Mr Khan’s behaviour.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
ChatterBank92 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.