Analyse the situation base on vicarious liability:

Julia's car was in desperate need of some repairs. As such, she dropped it off at Amrol & Son's Auto Repair Shop. After undergoing inspection at the shop, it was determined that the car would need to go to the manufacturers in order to address the electrical malfunctioning. Amrol & Son's communicated this information to Julia, who consented to having her car transported to the manufacturing company.

Upon completion of the repairs, Tony, the service manager at Amrol & Son's Auto Repair shop was instructed to uplift the car and return it to their repair shop. Rather than returning immediately, he used the car to run some of his personal errands. During the course of these errands, about four hours later, Tony became involved in an accident which totally wrecked Julia's car.

Julia brought a claim against Amrol & Son's Auto Repair Shop seeking to hold them vicariously liable for the damage to her car by their employee Tony. However, Amrol & Son's denied culpability claiming that Tony was on a "frolic of his own," since they did not authorize his personal errands; and also bearing in mind the fact that he had deviated significantly from the route from the manufacturers warehouse to their repair shop.

Julia is seeking your advice as to the likely outcome of the case.

Using relevant case law to support your answer, please advise her accordingly.