What is a Frolic and Detour?
Breaking Vicarious Liability of an Employer Principal
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
What is a frolic and detour?
A frolic and detour is a general defense to vicarious tort liability. It states that the principal should not be liable for the tortious acts of the agent when the agent is acting outside the scope of her employment and for the benefit of someone other than the employer. Plainly stated, an employee who is on a frolic or detour is no longer acting for the employer.
Next Article: When Agency Relationship Terminates Back to: AGENCY LAW
What is a Frolic?
A frolic is when an employee abandons the employer's business objectives and pursues personal interests.
What is a Detour?
A detour occurs when an employee substantially deviates from an employer's instructions or rules.
Generally, both a frolic and detour must be present to relieve an employer from liability for the agent's actions.
- Example: An employee providing services for her employer at the location of a client is an agent acting within the scope of her employment. If, however, the employee takes the company vehicle and goes on a personal errand that is not authorized, the employee is likely outside the scope of her employment. Suppose while running these errands she gets into an automobile accident that is her fault. The employer would be able to argue that the deviation from her duties as an employee was a frolic and detour and relieved her of liability for the employee's tort.
Discussion: How do you feel about the doctrine of respondeat superior? Should a principal be held liable for the tortious acts of an agent if committed within the scope of employment? Why or why not? How would you define the scope of employment? Does it matter to you if the agent was also acting in her personal interest when committing the tort? In your opinion, how much of a deviation from her job duties must an employee vary in order for it to be considered a frolic and detour? Can you think of any situations in which a frolic or detour should still subject a principal to liability?
Practice Question: Mitchell is an employee of Big Corp. His primary responsibilities are to deliver company goods to retailers. When out driving to a retailer's location, Mitchell decides to stop by his house and have lunch. Big Corp has a strict policy against taking work trucks home or using company trucks for any purpose other than delivering Big Corp products to retailers. When backing out of his driveway, Mitchell hits Tom who is out jogging. Tom suffers injuries and sues Mitchell and Big Corp. What will Big Corp have to show to defend the action for Mitchell's negligence? What facts in this situation may hinder Big Corps defense?
- An employer may be liable for the negligent actions of an employee acting within the scope of her employment. Frolic and detour occur when an agent engages in conduct, during the time they are working on behalf of the principal, which is outside the scope of their employment and is done for their own benefit. In this situation, Mitchell's blatant disregard of company policy and the fact that he was serving his personal interest when returning home in the company truck may constitute a frolic and detour. If so, Big Corp would not be liable to Tom for the negligent action of Mitchell.