of vicarious liability. Conversely, if the same delivery truck driver decided to skip work for a few hours to catch a baseball game and, en route to the game he struck a pedestrian, his employer/principal would likely avoid liability, as the driver/employee/agent's actions have constituted a frolic, and his negligent actions occurred in furtherance of an act wholly separate from his employment, even though technically he is being paid during that time by his employer/principal. Factors relevant to determining whether an individual was engaged in a frolic or detour in a specific circumstance include, but are not limited to the following: Time (Consider the amount time taken for the departure and also if the departure is within the time frame during which the employee is employed.) Place: was the place where the incident occurred within the scope of the employee's employment? Authorization: was the employee a manager and thus have more latitude in their operation, or was the employee occupying an entry-level position? Foreseeability of the employee's departure. Normalcy of the employee's departure. Purpose: was the departure personally motivated or for the benefit of the employer? Special obligation: was a special duty placed upon the employee such as a common carrier or innkeeper? Common sense. Scope of employment. Employer negligence compared Determining whether an employee or agent was on a frolic or a detour will not relieve the employer/principal of their own liability for negligent entrustment. Thus, where an employer negligently permits an employee who is known to be a reckless driver, or should have been known with a basic amount of investigation that is reasonable for most employers to perform, to use a company vehicle the employer will be liable to those injured when the employee causes a car accident, even if the employee was on a frolic at the time. See also Joint and several liability References Tort law Labour law