Vicarious liability stage two: close connection and an assault on a customer (Mohamud v WM Morrison)

It is accepted that Kwame was Fuelstop's employee, so the question is the second stage: whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable. In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, on very similar facts, the Supreme Court asked what functions or field of activities had been entrusted to the employee, viewed broadly, and then whether the wrongful conduct was sufficiently connected with them. Kwame's job was to attend to customers and respond to their inquiries. His abusive response was inexcusable but within that field of activities, and what followed, including following Mr Varga to the forecourt and ordering him never to return, was an unbroken sequence of events in which he was purporting to act about his employer's business. The employer is therefore vicariously liable, without any need to show fault on its part.

Why A is wrong: The field of activities is viewed broadly; misconduct in the course of dealing with customers can be closely connected with the job.

Why B is wrong: In Mohamud, following the customer onto the forecourt did not break the connection; it was an unbroken sequence of events.

Why C is wrong: Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability for the employee's tort; it does not depend on the employer's own negligence.

Why E is wrong: Liability requires a close connection between the job and the wrong, not merely that the wrong occurred during working hours.