Posted By Mark Eastbourne
Morning

Can someone pleased shed some light on the above term?

Many thanks

Mark

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
It is a term taken from employment law described as:

"...if the worker acts wholly outside the normal ambit of his work and does something reckless or completely out of line with his duties—I think it was called a “frolic of his own” "

To quote from Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st060622/am/60622s01.htm)

Posted By Alan Hoskins
It's one of the defences against Vicarious Liability:

To avoid vicarious liability, an employer must demonstrate that either the employee was not negligent i.e. was reasonably careful, or that the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer's business, that is, ‘on a frolic of his own’.

Alan

Posted By John P
Another good test case is Conway v George Wimpy & Co 1951 2 KB 266. A driver employed by Wimpey was under strict orders not to carry passengers and a notice to this effect was clearly displayed in the cab of the lorry. The driver gave a lift to Conway, who was injured as a result of the driver's negligence. Conway was not a fellow employee, in fact had no connection with the employer's business. The Court held that George Wimpey were not vicariously liable, as the act of giving a lift was outwith the scope of employment and at the time of the accident Conway knew it was prohibited. The driver was on 'an independent frolic of his own.'

Posted By John P
Mark

This is sometimes a little difficult to get your head around. When an employee acts in breach of an express prohibition by the employer, this may appear to be outwith the scope of employment. However, it is not always the case. There are orders given to the employee by the employer which amount to some restriction as to what he can actually do as part of his job, or on how to do the job. Breach of the former will will mean that the employee has gone beyond the limits of his job - i.e. outwith the scope of employment; breach of the latter will mean that the employee was doing his job in a way, unauthorised, perhaps totally prohibited by his employer, but he was still doing the job - so he remains within the scope of his employment. Hope this helps a bit.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
So if the employee is doing the job in question - but in an unauthorised manner [Rose v Plenty] the the employer is Vicariously Liable.

But if the employee is not doing the job in question - in an unauthorised manner (?!) [Conway v George Wimpy] then the employee is "off on a frolic of his own"

There appear to be two tests used by the court here, have I got that right?

Posted By Aidan Toner
Just thinking out loud !!-What about the young person new to the workplace who does something juvenile and silly and hurts himself or others.(lets say it was typical teenage activity like wearing headphones but it just happened to be in the loading bay.)Was this a frolic on his own ?
Does 'frolic on his own' not recognise an expected level of supervision per type of person??

Posted By RBW
From my studies I understand that if the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer's business, that is, ‘on a frolic of his own’.

Posted By Tabs
From memory, it also has a test of supervision and prohibition.

Case (name long forgotten) of driver smoking within a fuel depot; site rules were 'no smoking'; he was told; he was warned; but when he did it again with bad consequences he was not deemed on a frolic.

From memory (help me someone, I'm struggling) the judge said he should have been dismissed or the like...?