MOGOENG J employment facilitated the abuse of that trust, the state might be held vicariously liable for the delict. The victim‘s understanding of the situation would presumably be that she is being protected or assisted by a law enforcement agent, empowered and obliged by the law to do so. Whether he is on or off duty would, in all likelihood, be immaterial to her. From where she stands, he is a policeman, employed to protect her, and should therefore be trusted to uphold, and not to contravene, the law. [67] I accept that the distinction between a policeman who is on duty and one who is off duty is a relevant factor in determining the closeness of the connection between the wrongful act and the perpetrator‘s employment. I do not accept, however, that it is determinative of whether the state may be held liable. Could we say that because a policeman is not on duty, he has no obligation as a policeman to protect a child against rape? I do not think so. The on-duty-off-duty discussion in this case is rendered less significant by the fact that a vulnerable young girl was led to believe that a policeman, whether on or off duty, assumed the responsibility to protect her or secure her safety. This was sufficient to cause her to let her guard down and place herself in his ‗capable hands‘. Generally, that would weigh in favour of rendering the state vicariously liable in the event of that trust being betrayed. [68] In addressing the question of Mr van Wyk‘s personal liability and his employer‘s vicarious liability, it should make little difference that he was on standby duty, for which he was being paid. What matters is whether the trust placed in him as a policeman by a vulnerable member of the public, creates a sufficiently close 26