MOGOENG J imposition of vicarious liability. It relied on the following factors in support of its conclusion: a. Mr van Wyk was in possession of a police vehicle. This provided him with the means to commit the offences and was the ―single most important connection‖9 between the business of the employer and the commission of the crime. b. The fact that Ms F understood Mr van Wyk to be a policeman to some extent operated to lull her suspicions that he might be a danger to her. In other words, it gave her some basis for trusting Mr van Wyk, in spite of her suspicions. c. The coincidence between the nature of the assistance that Mr van Wyk pretended to offer and the normal obligations of members of the police service, which is, in particular to protect vulnerable groups such as women and children. [19] Bozalek J was alive to the Minister‘s fear that a finding in favour of Ms F could open the floodgates to the state‘s strict liability for delictual acts committed by the police. He dealt with this concern on the basis that the K test was sufficiently flexible to allow a case-by-case determination of the issues. The Minister took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court decision for the reasons set out below. 9 High Court judgment above n 7 at para 43. 7