Do you agree with the decision from case Example 21.17? Why?

EXAMPLE 21.17 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