O’REGAN J (bb) The names, residential addresses and the registration numbers of the vehicles of persons so conveyed must be entered in the vehicle register (SAP 132(b)). (cc) Although the State is indemnified by section 32 bis of Act 7 of 1958, it must, where at all possible, be explained to persons conveyed in accordance with subparagraph (1)(c)(vii) that they are being conveyed at their own risk.” (footnote added) Proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal [8] Ms K instituted proceedings in the Johannesburg High Court against the respondent, as well as the three policemen, for damages arising from the conduct of the policemen in the early morning of 27 March 1999. She subsequently abandoned the claim against the three policemen who were in prison and unlikely to be able to pay any damages awarded against them. The remaining two parties agreed that the issue of the liability of the Minister should be determined first and that the quantum of damages investigation should await the outcome of that determination. The High Court dismissed Ms K’s claim but granted her leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. [9] The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that on the existing principles of vicarious liability the respondent was not liable for the damages suffered by Ms K. Scott JA for a unanimous Court reasoned as follows ─ “The legal principles underlying vicarious responsibility are well-established. An employer, whether a Minister of State or otherwise, will be vicariously liable for the delict of an employee if the delict is committed by the employee in the course and scope of his or her employment. Difficulty frequently arises in the application of the rule, particularly in so-called ‘deviation’ cases. But the test, commonly referred to as the ‘standard test’, has been repeatedly applied by this Court. Where there is a deviation the inquiry, in short, is whether the deviation was of such a degree that it 5