For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.Skip to main content
A common-law doctrine distinguishing an employee's minor deviation from work duties (detour) from a major personal pursuit (frolic) for vicarious liability purposes.
Frolic and detour is a doctrine in the law of agency and tort used to determine whether an employer is vicariously liable for harm caused by an employee acting outside strict job duties. The distinction turns on whether the worker's deviation was within the scope of employment.
The terminology traces to the English case Joel v. Morison (1834), where Baron Parke famously stated that the master is liable if the servant is "going on his master's business" but not if the servant is "going on a frolic of his own." The doctrine was absorbed into American tort law and is reflected in the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07, which frames the question in terms of conduct "within the scope of employment."
Courts apply a fact-intensive test, weighing factors such as the geographic and temporal extent of the deviation, whether the employee intended to return to assigned duties, and whether the activity served any purpose of the employer. A frolic can end — and scope of employment resume — once the employee resumes work-related activity.
While the doctrine sounds quaint, it has practical stakes in modern litigation involving company vehicles, rideshare drivers, traveling sales staff, and remote workers. Plaintiffs typically argue any deviation was a mere detour to reach the employer's deeper pockets; defendants argue the employee was on a frolic.
A detour is a minor, foreseeable deviation that keeps the employee within the scope of employment; a frolic is a substantial personal departure that takes the employee outside it, cutting off employer liability.
It originates in the 1834 English case Joel v. Morison, where Baron Parke distinguished between a servant acting on the master's business and one on a 'frolic of his own.' U.S. courts adopted the framework, and it appears in the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07.
Yes. Once an employee re-engages with work-related duties — for instance, returning to the assigned route — courts generally treat the employee as back within the scope of employment, restoring the employer's vicarious liability.