Answer:
In the case of the piano damage caused by the employee of ABC Moving Company, it is clear that the company would be held liable for the damages under the principle of vicarious liability. This principle holds that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees that are performed within the scope of their employment. This is based on the legal principle of agency, in which the employer is considered to be the principal, and the employee is considered to be the agent. As such, the employer is held liable for the actions of the agent, as long as they are performed within the scope of the agency relationship.
However, if the mover was a contractor, the situation is slightly different. In this case, ABC Moving Company would not be considered the employer of the contractor and would not be held liable for their actions under the principle of vicarious liability. However, the company could still be held liable for damages if they were found to be negligent in their hiring or supervision of the contractor, or if they breached any contract with the customer regarding the safe handling and transportation of the piano. This could be based on the legal principles of negligence and contractual liability.
Furthermore, It would be important to consider any relevant legislation, case law and industry standards that may apply to the situation and how it could affect the liability of the company. Additionally, looking at comparative legal systems and their approach to similar situations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.
In conclusion, the liability of the ABC Moving Company in this case would depend on whether the mover was an employee or contractor and it would be important to consider the legal principles of agency, negligence and contractual liability as well as relevant legislation, case law, industry standards and comparative analysis to fully understand and assess the liability of the company.