MOGOENG J [42] Feldman (Pty) Ltd v Mall27 is a pivotal common law authority on deviation cases. In that case an employee drove his employer‘s vehicle to deliver parcels as instructed by his employer. Thereafter, he attended to his personal matters. He then consumed alcohol, which significantly impaired his capacity to drive. On his way back to his employer‘s premises, he negligently collided with, and killed, a man who had two minor dependants. By a majority, the Appellate Division held the employer vicariously liable for the minor children‘s claim for damages. [43] This is the classic pre-constitutional common law position on vicarious liability in deviation cases, like K and this one. The breath of fresh constitutional air that courts are enjoined by section 39(2) of the Constitution to infuse into our common law requires that the parameters of vicarious liability in deviation cases be developed to accord with the dictates of the Bill of Rights. As appears later in this judgment,28 this was done in K. [44] Watermeyer CJ explained the rationale behind holding the employer liable even if the employee has intentionally deviated from his or her duty as follows: ―I have gone into this question more fully than seems necessary, in the hope that the reasons which have been advanced for the imposition of vicarious liability upon a master may give some indication of the limits of a master‘s legal responsibility, and the reasons are to some extent helpful. It appears from them that a master who does his work by the hand of a servant creates a risk of harm to others if the servant should prove to be negligent or inefficient or untrustworthy; that, because he has created this 27 1945 AD 733. 28 At [49] below. 16