FRONEMAN J true to the substance of K. Of particular relevance, in relation to the ―sufficiently close link‖ issue referred to in K, will be the enquiry into wrongfulness. [90] There are a number of reasons why it is necessary to move beyond the vicarious liability of the state as in K. It is necessary, first, to explain why, in K, the language of vicarious liability was used. The second reason is to acknowledge that the language of vicarious liability does give rise to some difficulty in cases where the state‘s constitutional and statutory obligations to protect people are implicated. The third is that the state invariably acts through its organs and employees, never distinctly or independently of them. The fourth is to examine whether the wrongfulness requirement in our law of delict provides a more appropriate vehicle for the limitation of state liability, rather than the ―sufficiently close link‖ test of vicarious liability, especially in cases of intentional deviation from state obligations. The last will be to see what role the ultimate determination of negligence of the state in fixing the further contours of its delictual liability may play, in addition to wrongfulness. [91] The main judgment does not deal with direct liability, on the ground that it was not argued before us. However, I consider the pleadings and evidence presented in this matter to lay an appropriate basis for consideration of the direct liability of the state. The possible prejudice that may have been caused by considering direct liability as the proper basis for deciding the case would have been adequately met by calling for further argument and, if that was the appropriate course, to refer the matter back to the High Court. That has not happened and, accordingly, I proceed without the 35