FRONEMAN J [118] Wrongfulness is established where there is a breach of a legal duty not to cause harm to another by one‘s negligent conduct.43 If the conduct consists of a positive act causing physical damage to another‘s person or property, both the existence of the duty not to cause harm and its breach are self-evident. The duty arises because the positive act infringes upon the recognised interests of property and security of the person. It is for that reason that the law recognises these invasions as prima facie wrongful.44 In these cases public and legal policy issues surrounding wrongfulness are already settled and wrongfulness can be avoided only by pleading some form of justification for the breach of the duty or, put differently, for the infringement of the recognised right or interest. [119] Where a court is requested to accept the existence of a legal duty in the context of the wrongfulness enquiry in the absence of legal precedent ―it is in reality asked to extend delictual liability to a situation where none existed before.‖45 Examples of where a court has done this are liability for negligent omissions and for negligently caused pure economic loss. In these kinds of cases the imposition of a duty is determined with reference to considerations of public and legal policy, consistent with 43 See Ewels above n 40 at 597B–C; Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Frost 1991 (4) SA 559 (A) at 570J; Indac Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A) at 797F; Knop above n 36 at 28A; Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) at para 27; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 12; Gouda above n 42 at para 12; Two Oceans above n 36 at para 12; Hirschowitz Flionis v Bartlett and Another 2006 (3) SA 575 (SCA) at paras 27-8; and MV MSC Spain; Mediterranean Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Tebe Trading (Pty) Ltd 2008 (6) SA 595 (SCA) at para 14. See also Corbett ―Aspects of the Role of Policy in the Evolution of our Common Law‖ (1987) 104 SALJ 52 at 59; Fagan ―Rethinking Wrongfulness in the Law of Delict‖ above n 42 at 110-2; Nugent ―Yes it is Always a Bad Thing for the Law: A Reply to Professor Neethling‖ (2006) 123 SALJ 557 at 560-561; and Brand above n 36 at 80. See however Neethling ―The Conflation of Wrongfulness and Negligence: Is it Always Such a Bad Thing for the Law of Delict?‖ (2006) 123 SALJ 204 at 212-3 and Neethling and Potgieter ―In (Self-)Defence of the Distinction Between Wrongfulness and Negligence‖ (2007) 124 SALJ 280 at 282-4. 44 Two Oceans above n 36 at para 10. 45 Id at para 12. 48