Asda security searching my mam when she had paid!!

Grumpy_chap

Alderbank said:

In employment law, that Nuremberg defence (I was only obeying orders) is generally a valid defence. Your employer is considered to have vicarious liability.

AIUI, vicarious liability can hold the employer to account even if the employee is not following orders.
IIRC, the two cases used to demonstrate in my studies were:
 - Bus Driver had an accident while driving a bus, even though the individual had gone off the prescribed route for whatever reason (something mundane like buying a sandwich).  It was held that the individual was employed to drive a bus and was driving a bus and therefore the employer was vicariously liable for the Bus Driver's actions.
 - Bus Conductor was moving a bus within a Bus Station and had an accident.  The employer was not held liable as the individual was deemed to be "on a frolic of his own".  The Bus Conductor was not acting as a Bus Conductor.

(The cases are quite old and, I have no doubt, the employer would be liable under H&S law today if the Bus Conductor was able to just jump into a bus and drive it - AIUI, at the time of the incident, it was custom that the Bus Driver's simply left the keys in the ignition so the Bus Conductor was able to hop in and move the bus easily.)



On the more specific case of the OP's mother being asked at exit to provide a receipt for the make up items, this type of thread appears from time to time in these forums and the individual that was asked is always offended.
I wonder, if no-one was ever asked about the proof of purchase on exit, would we all be happy to pay the significantly inflated prices to cover the costs of highly increased rates of theft and / or would we all be happy when all the stores have gone because stopping theft from mail order is easier than stopping theft from stores?