Final answer:
If an accident occurs while an employee is on a frolic, the employee would typically be responsible for third-party injuries, as their actions are outside the scope of their employment. Employers are not usually liable for employees' actions during such activities. The Denial of Injury defense is unlikely to mitigate liability.
Step-by-step explanation:
When an accident occurs while an employee is on a frolic of their own—that is, engaging in personal activities unrelated to their employment—it typically distances the employer from responsibility for the actions of the employee. If there is an accident with a third party, the responsibility for any injuries incurred by the third party would generally lie with the employee rather than the employer, because the employee's actions were not within the scope of their employment. In legal terms, employers are usually only vicariously liable for the actions of their employees when those actions occur within the course of employment.
However, if an employee attempts to use the Denial of Injury defense, suggesting that no significant harm was done because "nobody got hurt," it may not sufficiently mitigate their liability, especially if insurance concerns are involved. In the context of moral philosophy, as suggested by William David Ross's argument in regards to prima facie duties, one might consider the duty to assist someone injured in an accident as superseding less critical obligations, such as attending personal appointments.