I genuinely appreciate any and all opinions. Please consider the following:
In particular, § 410 pertains to situations in which an employer exercises control
over the work of the independent contractor. Section 410 provides: ‘‘The employer of an independent contractor is subject to the same liability for physical harm
caused by an act or omission committed by the contractor pursuant to orders or directions negligently given by the employer, as though the act or omission were
that of the employer himself.’’ 2 Restatement (Second),Torts § 410 (1965).
Due to limitations on length, the actual question I will admit in the next space.A property owner contracts with an independent contractor for the removal of a restaurant hood. The workers use a cutting torch in a negligent manner and burn the building. The contractor alleged that he told the owner that he would only remove the hood and not the ductwork due to a "safety risk". The issue is whether the owner's negligent instructions to the workers to trim the ductwork flush to the ceiling constitutes an exception to the independent contractor rule and thus vicarious liability. The rub here is whether the overarching principle here of CONTROL AND SUPERVISION are set aside. The decision also found the workers to be grossly negligent, so they necessarily were aware of the dangers. So, does the control and supervision provision of the ind. cont. rule vanish if a request is made to do something negligent and there is compliance?