FRONEMAN J Negligence [148] Mr van Wyk‘s omission to protect the applicant was deliberate, but also, obviously, negligent. There is no evidence that the state took other reasonable measures to prevent him from acting in the way he did. Despite knowledge of his previous convictions he was allowed to continue service. Harm was foreseeable. No steps were taken to prevent it from occurring. In view of the fact that the parties were not called on to make further submissions, however, the possibility of further evidence on this aspect may have changed the situation.82 Conclusion [149] For these reasons I concur in the order of the main judgment. 82 It is ironic that because the pleadings are of the ‗course and scope‘ variety, this possible last line of defence for the state does not feature in a vicarious liability enquiry. 60