Do you agree with the decision from below mention case? While driving his employer’s vehicle to call on a customer, Mandel decides to stop at his bank—which is one block off his route—to make a personal deposit. Mandel then negligently runs into a parked vehicle owned by Kelly. In this situation, because Mandel’s detour from the employer’s business is not substantial, he is still acting within the scope of employment, and the employer is liable.

The result would be different, however, if Mandel had decided to pick up a few friends for cocktails in another city and in the process had negligently run into Kelly’s vehicle. In that situation, the departure from the employer’s business would be substantial, and the employer normally would not be liable to Kelly for damages. Mandel would be considered to have been on a "frolic" of his own.

I do agree with the decision.

Explanation:

Luckily for all of us, employees are still human beings. As such, we are allowed certain privileges when using a company's car, e.g. we are allowed to go to a coffee shop to buy a cup of coffee or eat something while we are using the car. In this case, Mandel went to the bank, which was only 1 block away form his route, which is still under the normal scope of what an employee can do. He could argue that he wanted to check his bank account were he deposits his paycheck.

It is very different if Mandel does something irresponsible like going out with friends or drinking. In no way these actions can be related with his normal employment activities.

explore some of these tourist attractions

the metropolitan museum of art. source: anton_ivanov / shutterstock.

central park. source: gagliardiphotography / shutterstock.

national 9/11 memorial and museum.

empire state building.

statue of liberty.

the museum of modern art (moma)

rockefeller center.

brooklyn bridge.

explanation:

first one

explanation: