O’REGAN J to refer to any authority in support of such a novel proposition. In my view it is without merit.”56 [47] In making the submission in this Court, applicant’s counsel relied on the statement by Watermeyer CJ in Feldman’s case, cited earlier,57 that the fact that an employee’s conduct is, on the face of it, purely in pursuit of the business of the employee, is not necessarily sufficient to ensure that the employer will not be liable. A further question will need to be considered and that is whether in pursuing his or her own interests, the employee will be neglecting the tasks required by the employer. If so, then the employer may nevertheless be liable. In his judgment, Watermeyer CJ gave the example of a railway gate keeper who, on a hot day, deserts his post to get refreshment, and while he is away an accident occurs. Watermeyer CJ noted that the “servant’s indulgence in a frolic may in itself constitute a neglect to perform his master’s work properly, and may be the cause of the damage.”58 In such circumstances, Watermeyer CJ implied the employer would be vicariously liable.59 [48] There can be no doubt that Watermeyer CJ’s reasoning is correct and that to the extent that the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected this argument of the applicant in this case, it was mistaken. An employee can at the same time be committing a delict for his or her own purposes, and neglecting to perform his or her duties as an employee 56 Above n 3 at para 6. 57 At 742 of the judgment, above at para 27. 58 At 744 of the judgment, above para 27. 59 See the discussion of this precise example in Atiyah above n 21 at 264-5. 34