well-established common law agency rules, an agent is not acting within the scope of his employment when he is “going on a frolic of his own.” Joel v. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 501, 172 Eng.Rep. 1338 (1834)(first recorded use of this phrase); see also Spencer v. Assurance Co. of America, 39 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994)(interpreting Florida law). In this scenario, the agent steps outside of his employment to do some act for himself which is not connected to his employer’s business. See William L. Prosser, § 70 Law of Torts at 461 (4th ed.1982). If the agent has no intention to perform any service for his employer, but instead seeks only to further some personal end, then the act is not within the scope of his employment. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 102 F.3d 486, 489 (11th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>); Spencer, 39 F.3d at 1150 (holding that in
holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred recognizing respondeat superior liability holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted holding that the criminal acts committed by the defendants employees were outside of the scope of their employment and in no way advanced the interests of the defendant so that the defendant could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior citations omitted holding that victim of accidental shooting in army barracks could not hold the united states liable under georgia respondeat superior principles because employee had undertaken an act purely personal in nature and thus outside the scope of his employment