When an employee causes a car accident while driving for work, the employer can be held responsible for damages. This legal principle, called vicarious liability, holds companies accountable for the actions of their workers carried out within the scope of employment. But what happens when the employee was running a personal errand at the time of the crash? The answer depends on a classic legal distinction between a “frolic” and a “detour.” Understanding this difference is crucial for employers, employees, and anyone injured in an accident involving a worker’s vehicle.
Scope of employment simply means the activities an employee performs that benefit the employer. If a delivery driver hits someone while making a scheduled drop-off, the employer is liable. If a sales representative causes a crash while driving between client meetings, again the employer is on the hook. But the law recognizes that employees sometimes stray from their work tasks to handle personal business. When that personal deviation is small and temporary, it is called a detour. When it is a major, unauthorized side trip that has nothing to do with work, it is called a frolic.
A detour is a minor, incidental diversion from the work path. For example, an employee driving to a job site decides to stop for a cup of coffee at a drive-through. While pulling out of the coffee shop, she hits a pedestrian. Because the stop was brief, close to the work route, and done during an otherwise work-related trip, it is likely a detour. The employer remains liable because the employee had not abandoned her work duties; she simply took a small break. In legal terms, she was still acting within the scope of employment.
A frolic is a different animal. It happens when the employee leaves work entirely for a personal mission—one that is not even remotely connected to the employer’s business. Suppose the same sales representative finishes her client meetings and then drives twenty miles in the opposite direction to visit her cousin’s house. On the way, she runs a red light and causes a collision. That is a frolic. The employer is not liable because at the moment of the accident, the employee was pursuing her own interests, not the company’s. The work had ended, and the personal trip was the sole purpose of the drive.
Courts evaluate several factors to decide whether a deviation is a frolic or a detour. The distance off the work route matters—a few blocks is usually a detour, while many miles suggests a frolic. The amount of time spent on the personal activity is also important. A quick stop of five minutes is different from an hour-long errand. The employee’s intent plays a role: was she planning to return to work immediately, or was the work day essentially over? And crucially, was the personal activity for the employee’s own benefit or also for the employer’s? If the stop serves some work purpose—like buying supplies—it strengthens the argument for a detour.
One common complication is the dual-purpose trip. An employee might combine a work task with a personal stop. For example, a technician drives from a repair job to the office but stops at home to pick up a forgotten lunch. If the accident happens on the way home, is that a frolic? Usually, if the employee is still en route to a work destination and the home stop is a minor interruption, it remains a detour. The key is the predominant purpose of the overall trip. If the personal component is the main reason for the trip, the deviation becomes a frolic.
The type of vehicle also matters. If the employee was driving a company-owned car, courts are more likely to find the employer liable even for moderate detours. The employer gave the worker the vehicle for work use, and that implied approval extends to reasonable personal side trips. In contrast, if the employee was using a personal car, the connection to the employer is weaker, making it easier for the employer to escape liability for a frolic. But a frolic in a personal car still relieves the employer of responsibility—the difference is simply how much deviation courts will tolerate before calling it a frolic.
Employer policies matter, but they are not a magic shield. A company can forbid all personal errands during work hours, and that policy helps argue that any personal stop is a frolic. Yet if the stop is very minor, a jury might still find the employer liable because the employee was effectively still doing work. Policies are evidence of what the employer intended, but the actual actions of the employee matter more.
For employees, the lesson is clear: even a short personal stop can create liability for your employer if it is a detour. If you cause an accident during a major personal side trip, you are on your own. For accident victims, knowing whether the driver was on a frolic or a detour can determine whether you sue the company or just the individual driver. The doctrine is fact-driven, but the core idea is simple: the more the employee steps away from work to handle personal business, the less the employer pays.
