Donate SIGN UP

Exactly How Were They Supposed To Stop This Then ?

Avatar Image
bazwillrun | 10:48 Wed 02nd Mar 2016 | News
36 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35696701

an absolute nonsense decision by our wonderful judiciary...
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 36 of 36rss feed

First Previous 1 2

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.
THECORBYLOON, See the smiley at the end of AOG's comment? What happened to sense of humour? I had a post zapped this morning because I laughed at someone else's joke! This whole reporting/zapping business is getting really silly now.
OK....for 'newspapers' insert 'media'....
So if a accuse a member of being a racist bigot but add a smiley face that is okay?

With regard to the verdict, the BBC report says, "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."

This man was employed to serve the public.

Now, if he were a mechanic employed to mend and service cars the employer would be vicariously liable if he failed to tighten the wheel nuts and a wheel fell off on the motorway. That is part of the mechanic's job and he failed to do it to a reasonable level.
If that same mechanic had a moment of madness and deliberately smashed the car with a wrench the employer would still be responsible even though that isn't part of the mechanic's job.

This is a similar situation except the employee lost his temper with a customer, not the customer's property. The customer only had the encounter with the employee because he wanted to be served at Morrison's.
I can understand that the employer might have been responsible if the employee had been negligent in the course of his job.
THECORBYLOON, //So if a accuse a member of being a racist bigot but add a smiley face that is okay? //

I must have missed that one.
^He, of course, had to interact with customers. But, unless he was a known psychopath, what on earth can Morrisons have done to foresee this?
//what on earth can Morrisons have done to foresee this? //

Nothing at all.
Question Author
"THECORBYLOON, See the smiley at the end of AOG's comment? What happened to sense of humour? "

how dare you question capman.....
Question Author
"AB Editor do you think ANOTHEOLDGIT'S comment is acceptable? "

get over yourself

AB editor do you think using caps is acceptable ?...
It's an everyday occurrence, all employers (should) have third-party liability cover. I even had it when I didn't even employ anyone but had lots of people visiting my studio, - in case they stabbed themselves with a palette-knife or swallowed a bottle of turps, etc. I was told that even if you warned people of the danger, it didn't exonerate you if an accident befell them.

Morrisons' insurers will pay, their premium will increase and they, in theory, will make it up in prices.
BAZWILLRUN, have I upset you?
That is the thing. It's where the buck stops. It seems management carry the can for what those under them do. One might have expected having taken reasonable steps to prevent it would count for something, but ultimately your staff are your representatives.
I personally don't think it is fair to penalise Morrisons for his actions.
O dear we are thrashing around a bit
the judgement is here

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-judgment.pdf

the general principle is that an employer is responsible for a lot of the employees actions . the reason is straightforward - the employer will have and has to be insured for a variety of action/events on his propery, and is responsible for his employees actions a lot of the time

the test is whether the employee was on a frolic of his own

and i think beating up a customer is NOT
it is clearly in the course of employment

I was surprised it went to the supreme court the principles have been around for at least fifty or seventy years
//what on earth can Morrisons have done to foresee this? //
Nothing at all.

irrelevant

the test used is the close connection test - which is a kind of refinement of the 'frolic of his own' test. Foreseeability is not used here

21 to 36 of 36rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Exactly How Were They Supposed To Stop This Then ?

Answer Question >>

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.