FRONEMAN J Generally, accountability concerns would favour delictual liability, but that is not always the case.55 [124] Factors that militate against the imposition of liability include the availability of an alternative remedy,56 the possibility that imposing liability might undermine the functioning of the state organ in question,57 the convenience of administering a rule that liability will be imposed in these circumstances,58 the possibility of limitless liability59 and whether the plaintiff is best placed to protect himself against loss. 60 It is generally only when all these concerns are met that the value of accountability and other constitutional values may require the recognition of a legal duty under the wrongfulness enquiry. The ultimate determination of negligence [125] Wrongfulness is determined on the assumption of negligent state conduct on the part of the official directly involved in the breach of a public duty. When one turns to the actual determination of negligence this assumption obviously falls away. The facts might show that there was no negligent conduct on the part of this official.61 It is 55 See Steenkamp above n 36 at para 86, Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 21; and Carmichele (SCA) above n 50 at para 43. 56 Knop above n 36 at 33B; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 21; and Van Eeden above n 46 at para 19. 57 Knop above n 36 at 33C-D; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 22; Van Eeden above n 46 at para 21; and Hamilton above n 46 at para 35. 58 Administrateur, Natal above n 42 at 833H-834A; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 13; and Hamilton above n 46 at para 17. 59 Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 19; Van Eeden above n 46 at para 22; and Fourway Haulage above n 42 at para 23. 60 Fourway Haulage above n 42 at para 27. 61 Where this is the case it will not be necessary to inquire into wrongfulness. 51