MOGOENG J [39] For these reasons leave to appeal stands to be granted. By way of background, it is necessary to highlight the general principles of vicarious liability and how they evolved until K was decided. I do so below. Vicarious liability in general [40] Vicarious liability means a person may be held liable for the wrongful act or omission of another even though the former did not, strictly speaking, engage in any wrongful conduct. This would arise where there is a particular relationship between those persons, such as employment.25 As a general rule, an employer is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of an employee committed within the course and scope of employment, or whilst the employee was engaged in any activity reasonably incidental to it.26 [41] Two tests apply to the determination of vicarious liability. One applies when an employee commits the delict while going about the employer‘s business. This is generally regarded as the ‗standard test‘. The other test finds application where wrongdoing takes place outside the course and scope of employment. These are known as ‗deviation cases‘. The matter before us is a typical deviation case. 25 Neethling et al Law of Delict 6 ed (Lexis Nexis, Durban 2010) at 365-71. 26 See for example Ess Kay Electronics Pte Ltd and Another v First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd 2001 (1) SA 1214 (SCA) (Ess Kay Electronics) at para 7; and ABSA Bank Ltd v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 372 (SCA) at para 5. 15