FRONEMAN J [112] The question arises whether it is appropriate to develop K further by acknowledging that direct, rather than vicarious, state delictual liability is called for in this matter. In my view it is. The decision in K was ground-breaking in many respects. It lifted the veil behind which vicarious liability in its traditional formulation sought to hide substantive social and policy choices in adjudication. It clarified the importance of constitutional values in those choices. In doing so it enriched our law. Further development will only deepen and enhance our understanding of the inevitability of evaluative choices when we apply and develop the rules of our common law. We are fortunate that we have, in our law of delict, a vehicle for that development – the requirement of wrongfulness.36 Wrongfulness or “sufficiently close connection”? [113] Both the wrongfulness requirement in direct delictual liability and the requirement of ―a sufficiently close connection‖ in a vicarious liability enquiry involve mixed questions of fact and law. Does it then really make any difference whether a court makes the value assessment in respect of wrongfulness or as part of the second, objective, ―close connection‖ question? I think it does. 36 It is important to bear in mind that there is a crucial difference between the enquiries into wrongfulness and negligence in the South African law of delict, and the English tort of negligence and its reliance on a ‗duty of care‘. The concept of ‗duty of care‘ straddles both negligence and wrongfulness, while South African law clearly distinguishes these two elements although it sometimes uses language (such as ‗legal duty‘ and ‗imposing liability‘) which might suggest an overlap. See Brand ―Reflections on Wrongfulness in the Law of Delict‖ (2007) 124 SALJ 76 at 80. The difference between the position in South African law and the English ‗duty of care‘ has been pointed out and discussed in Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) (Knop) at 26I-27H; Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) (Telematrix) at para 14; and Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer (Pty) Ltd 2006 (3) SA 138 (SCA) (Two Oceans) at para 11. See also Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape [2006] ZACC 16; 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) (Steenkamp) at paras 37-9. 45