Frolic and Detour

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.

• A detour is a minor or foreseeable deviation from assigned tasks — for example, a delivery driver stopping briefly for coffee along the route. The employee is still considered to be acting within the scope of employment, so the employer remains liable under the principle of respondeat superior.
• A frolic is a substantial departure for the employee's own purposes, unrelated to the employer's business — for instance, taking the company van on a weekend road trip. During a frolic, the employer is generally not vicariously liable.

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.