O’REGAN J liability is often discussed in judicial decisions20 and academic writing.21 The rationale for vicarious liability is to be found in a range of underlying principles. An important one is the desirability of affording claimants efficacious remedies for harm suffered. Another is the need to use legal remedies to incite employers to take active steps to prevent their employees from harming members of the broader community.22 There is a countervailing principle too, which is that damages should not be borne by employers in all circumstances, but only in those circumstances in which it is fair to require them to do so. [22] Despite the policy-laden character of vicarious liability, our courts have often asserted, though not without exception,23 that the common-law principles of vicarious liability are not to be confused with the reasons for them,24 and that their application 20 See, for example, Bezuidenhout NO v Eskom 2003 (3) SA 83 (SCA) at para 19; Minister of Law and Order v Ngobo 1992 (4) SA 822 (A) at 833G-H; Hirsch Appliance Specialists v Shield Security Natal (Pty) Ltd 1992 (3) SA 643 (D) at 647G-H. See also the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in this matter above n 3 at para 4. 21 See, for example, Barlow The South African Law of Vicarious Liability in Delict (Juta, Cape Town and Johannesburg 1939), at 3-4; Neethling et al Deliktereg 4 ed (Butterworths, Durban 2002), at 389-391; Scott Middellike Aanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg (Butterworth, Durban and Pretoria 1983), at 12-13; Fleming The Law of Torts 9 ed (LBC Information Services, Sydney 1998), at 409-10; Atiyah Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Butterworths, London 1967), at 12-15; Laski “The Basis of Vicarious Liability” (1916-17) 26 Yale Law Journal 105 at 105-7. 22 See the discussion of these principles by McLachlin J in Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534 at para 26ff, and Binnie J in Jacobi v Griffiths [1999] 2 SCR 570 at paras 68-76. 23 See, for example, Feldman (Pty) Ltd v Mall 1945 AD 733 per Watermeyer CJ at 741, per Davis AJA at 784-5; Grobler v Naspers Bpk en ‘n Ander 2004 (4) SA 220 (C) at 296F-297C (with reference to recent court decisions in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand); Hirsch above n 20 at 647G-649B. 24 See, for example, Ess Kay Electronics Pte Ltd and Another v First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd 2001 (1) SA 1214 (SCA) at paras 9-10; Ngobo above n 20 at 831G; Carter & Co (Pty) Ltd v McDonald 1955 (1) SA 202 (A) at 211H. 16