Based on what you know about this case, does it meet the "frolic and detour" standard?
Does F&D apply to government entities as well?
“Based on what you know about this case, does it meet the “frolic and detour” standard?”
I don’t know more than the average person about this case, but the concept would apply if, in essence, the “bad actor” was acting fully outside of the scope of his duties and his agency.
Think of it this way, in a master-agent scenario. An employer is the master, and provides direction to his agents in the course of their employment. If the agent, within the arguable scope of that direction, harms a third party, then the master is responsible to the third party, and the master might also be seen to have a duty to indemnify the agent, if the agent is also required to pay damages for an act.
But there has to be a limit to that principle. If the agent acts totally outside the scope of his direction, and commits actions in total violation of his employer’s direction, then the employer’s culpability should be extinguished at some point and the agent should bear the responsibility for his action.
One valid question to ask is: was the master negligent in managing the agent, under all the facts, such that the master should have known about the danger and could have prevented it? I don’t know all the facts here but I would tend to think the answer is NO, the FBI wasn’t negligent.