13 December 2009
James Fallows of the Atlantic points out an interesting legal use of the word frolic. The case in point is the letter from the Federal Aviation Administration to the pilot of Northwest flight 188, the flight where the pilots “forgot” to land the plane in Minneapolis and overflew the destination by 150 miles because they were “distracted.” The revocation letter reads, in part:
You engaged in conduct that put your passengers and your crew in serious jeopardy. NW188 was without communication with any Air Traffic Control facility and with its company dispatcher for a period of 91 minutes (over 1.5 hours) while you were on a frolic of your own.
As Fallows points out, this use of frolic seems rather “colorful” language for a bureaucratic letter, but it turns out that frolic has a particular meaning in legal jargon that is unfamiliar to most non-lawyers. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition, defines frolic as:
An employee’s significant deviation from the employer’s business for personal reasons. • A frolic is outside the scope of employment and thus the employer is not vicariously liable for the employee’s actions.
Presumably, the FAA included the phrase to indicate that the revocation of the pilot’s license was a personal action, and that the action should not be taken as evidence of any liability on the part of the airline.
You only need to casually look and you’ll find many instances of jargon meanings that are opaque to the lay reader, but seldom will you find one this eye-catching.
