Do you agree with the decision from Case Example 21.17 (Mandel)? Why?

Case Example 21.17:

While driving his employers vehicle to call on a customer, Mandel decides to stop at his bankwhich is one block off his routeto make a personal deposit. Mandel then negligently runs into a parked vehicle owned by Kelly. In this situation, because Mandels detour from the employers 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 Kellys vehicle. In that situation, the departure from the employers 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.