O’REGAN J matter of degree will determine whether the servant can be said to have ceased to exercise the functions to which he was appointed.”35 [30] In subsequent cases the approaches advocated by Watermeyer CJ and Tindall JA and concurred in by Fischer AJA in Feldman’s case were held to constitute the majority judgment of the Court.36 Both judgments have been repeatedly cited in subsequent cases37 and variations of the approach suggested have been adopted and applied. [31] In Minister of Police v Rabie,38 the Appellate Division had to consider a claim for damages arising from the wrongful arrest, detention and assault of the plaintiff. The member of the police force who had made the arrest was a mechanic, in plain clothes and not on duty at the time. In making the arrest he had acted in pursuance of his own interests. He had however identified himself as a policeman to the plaintiff, taken the plaintiff to the police station, filled out a docket and wrongfully charged the plaintiff with attempted housebreaking. The case thus concerned the clear deviation of an employee from the ordinary tasks of his employment. The question was whether his employer, the Minister of Police, was vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Jansen JA, for the majority of the Court holding the Minister liable, 35 Id at 756-7. See also the dictum of Davis AJA at 784; and that of Greenberg JA (dissenting) at 762. 36 See, for example, Minister of Police v Rabie 1986 (1) SA 117 (A) at 130F-G; African Guarantee & Indemnity Co Ltd v Minister of Justice 1959 (2) SA 437 (A) at 446F-G. 37 See, for example, the judgments referred to in the previous note and ABSA above n 25 per Zulman JA at para 5; Minister of Safety and Security v Jordaan t/a Andre Jordaan Transport above n 28 at para 5; Viljoen v Smith 1997 (1) SA 309 (A) at 316B-F. 38 Above n 36. 22