References:  2 All ER 935
Coram: Hilbery J
A garage attendant, as an act of personal vengeance, assaulted a customer of the garage. A customer at a petrol station was abused by the attendant as he drove off without paying. The customer then paid, called the police and then threatened to report the attendant to his employers. At that point the attendant physically assaulted the customer, who now sued the employer.
Held: The employers were not liable. The act of assault was one of personal revenge, and was outside the scope of his employment.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Lister and Others -v- Hesley Hall Ltd HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of Lords,  UKHL 22,  1 AC 215,  2 All ER 769,  2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49,  NPC 89,  Fam Law 595,  2 WLR 1311,  IRLR 472,  ICR 665,  Emp LR 819,  2 FLR 307,  ELR 422)
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
- Cited – Mattis -v- Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD (Bailii,  EWHC 2177 (QB),  1 WLR 2158,  4 All ER 85,  All ER (D) 10,  PIQR P3,  IRLR 603,  ICR 1335)
The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .