Generally if a corporate entity hires an independent contractor, then the corporate entity (e.g., the Twins) will be liable for the actions of the independent contractor.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In this true/false item, the statement is asking whether a corporate entity that hires an independent contractor will generally be liable for the contractor’s actions.
Option 1: True. This would assert broad liability on the corporation for the independent contractor’s torts or wrongs. While there are circumstances where a principal may be liable for an independent contractor (for example, if the principal retains control over the contractor’s methods, if the work is inherently dangerous, or if there is a non-delegable duty assigned to the principal), the general rule in many jurisdictions is that a company is not automatically liable for the acts of an independent contractor merely because it hired them. 
Option 2: False. This is the more accurate general rule: independent contractors, not employees, typically bear responsibility for their own torts and negligence, and the hiring company is not vicariously liable for their actions unless specific exceptions apply. The core reason is that the contractor is considered to control how the work is performed and is responsible for that performance, breaking the typical employer-employee vicarious liability relationship. 
Examining potential exceptions can clarify the boundary: if the corporation retained substantial control over the contractor’s methods, or if the activity involves a non-delegable duty, or if the contractor’s work is inherently dangerous and non-delegable, liability could attach to the hiring entity. Likewise, misrepresentation, negligent hiring, or a failure to exercise due care in selecting a competent contractor could also create liability for the principal. 
However, none of these nuances change the overall takeaway for a general statement asserting automatic liability; they simply carve out exceptions to the general rule. Therefore, the broad statement that corporations are generally liable for independent contractors’ actions is not correct, given the usual legal framework. 
In short, the claim overstretches the default rule, because the typical liability flow assigns responsibility to the contractor rather than the hiring corporation, except in the listed special circumstances.

SMGT 3861 (001) Chapter 2 Quiz - Part 2

Generally if a corporate entity hires an independent contractor, then the corporate entity (e.g., the Twins) will be liable for the actions of the independent contractor.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Question at position 7 Who may be legally liable for an act of sexual harassment against an intern by an employee of a company? Consider the following factors 1. The employer of the harasser2. The harasser (the employee who harassed the intern) 1 & 21 only2 only

For an employer to be liable for the torts of an employee, the employer must be negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.

Under the legal theory of respondeat superior, which party is liable for damages to a patient resulting from breach of confidence?

Question at position 29 As long as a buyer is acting in accordance with their employer’s direction, they can never have personal liability for their actions.TrueFalse

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler