Question

TUV Company owns a tall office building. Once every two months for many years, the Quixotic Window Washing Co. (QWW) has sent its workers to the building to wash its windows using QWW's equipment. In return, TUV pays QWW $1,000 bi-monthly. One time, one of QWW's employees carelessly dropped a squeegee which landed on a pedestrian below, injuring him. The employee had not been following QWW's safety protocols. The pedestrian sued TUV in negligence. Which of the following is true?

A. The pedestrian can probably recover from TUV because the QWW employee, it is specified in the facts, dropped the squeegee carelessly.
B. The QWW worker is probably an independent contractor of TUV's and of QWW.
C. TUV is probably liable because its relationship with QWW has lasted many years.
D. TUV is probably not liable because too many other factors point toward QWW being an independent contractor.

Answer 1

TUV is probably not liable because too many other factors point toward QWW being an independent contractor.

Step-by-step explanation:

The correct answer is D. TUV is probably not liable because too many other factors point toward QWW being an independent contractor.

In this scenario, TUV Company hired the services of the Quixotic Window Washing Co. (QWW) to wash its windows every two months. QWW's employees are responsible for their own actions and safety protocols. As an independent contractor, QWW is responsible for any negligence committed by its employees while working for TUV.

In general, the employer is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, unless specific circumstances exist that establish a different relationship, such as control over the contractor's work or negligence by the employer in selecting or supervising the contractor.