FRONEMAN J [122] In order not to conflate the wrongfulness and negligence requirements of our law of delict, an assumption of negligently caused harm often assists in correctly focussing on what is relevant in deciding the reasonableness of imposing liability under the wrongfulness enquiry.52 The assumption is necessary for the correct assessment of wrongfulness as a separate requirement of delictual liability, and obviously cannot be made when the further requirement of negligence is independently assessed. The wrongfulness enquiry would thus determine whether it is reasonable to impose liability or to withhold it for other public or legal policy reasons. It is within that context that the treatment of constitutional values as part of the wrongfulness enquiry in our case law should be assessed. [123] From this perspective, reference to the constitutional norm of accountability in the determination of wrongfulness does not provide reasons independent of negligence to impose delictual liability.53 It simply provides the proper context within which to determine whether the costs associated with the imposition of delictual liability for negligently caused harm should prevent the imposition of that liability or not.54 delict] for the failure to perform the duties imposed upon it by the Constitution unless it can be shown that there is compelling reason to deviate from that norm.‖ 52 Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 12. See also Knop above n 36 at 24G-H. 53 This is not the way in which some commentators view the effects of post-constitutional case law. They appear to assume that the discussion of the norm of accountability in the wrongfulness enquiry provides an independent, not additional, reason for imposing delictual liability. See Fagan ―Rethinking Wrongfulness in the Law of Delict‖ above n 42 at 134-6; and Price above n 42 at 14-6. 54 Compare Du Bois ―Getting Wrongfulness Right: a Ciceronian Attempt‖ above n 42 at 31-2. 50