1. Correction 1
Mr Mohaumud suffered a racist attack by an employee at a Tesco petrol station.
He is unlikley to be able to recover damages from his attacker.
Issue: Whether Mr Mohaumud is able to make a claim against Tesco supermarket under the doctrine of vicarious liability, which requires the employee's tort to be "closely connected" to his job?
(You could also have considered a negligence claim against Tesco).
I have identified the key legal issues which the facts raised. There were other issues you could have considered, but they were not the

2. Correction 1 Discussion:
The tort was "closely connected" to the Tesco employee's job.
As in Mattis v Pollock [2003] , the employee misused the position entrusted to him in a way which injured a third party.
The Tesco employee's job was to attend to customers – his response to Mr Mohamud as a potential customer was within the field of activities entrusted to him by his employer.
The events flowed from the initial encounter, there was no point when the attacker stopped acting as an employee.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016]

3. Correction 2
Nottinghamshire County Council have been informed that Susan Jones has filed a claim against the council, seeking to hold them liable for the abuse she suffered.
Jones was placed in the care of Nottinghamshire County Council between the ages of seven to 18. The council placed her into foster care with Mr and Mrs A between March 1985 and March Jones was physically and emotionally abused by Mrs A.
Issue: Whether Nottinghamshire County Council is liable either:
i) in negligence
ii) under the principles of vicarious liability

4. i) The council is probably not liable in negligence
The council clearly owed Jones a duty of care.
However, there seems to have been neither evidence nor suspicion of the abuse.
Provided that there were standard procedures in place to safeguard children, and that were properly implemented, the court will probably not find that the duty of care was breached.
ii) The council is liable under the principles of vicarious liability
Mrs A was in a situation ‘akin to employment’.
The council’s powers of approval, inspection, supervision and removal establish the necessary level of "control" over the foster carer.
The foster parents were acting for the benefit of the Council.
The tort (abuse) was also closely connected to the job.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017]
a) Although Mrs A was not an employee of the council, she was in a situation "akin to employment". In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] the UKSC established that defendants can be held vicariously liable if the tortfeasor was "akin to" an employee, as a result of meeting certain criteria. These include the
the fact that the defendant exercised some degree of control over the tortfeasor, and
that the tort arose out of activity which the tortfeasor carried out on behalf of the defendant and which was part of the defendant's business or organisational activities.