had worn away the room itself was compromised and could not hold the pressure and this all happened while in the control of her trucking mr robinson was not involved in any was presented was completely in the control of her trucking and their maintenance repairs and inspections were negligent at no time we assert that the liability a are don't know the answer that i think it is i don't know the answer that it's something that he knew about and he was going to do with any take the tire off the rim that your honor be flayed it before you do it respectfully that's not correct he was asked to rotate the inside ran to the outside in the outside or into the inside he was never one of the primary points is that even under osha standards under these circumstances mr robinson would not have been required to deflate the rim or deflate the tire he was not hired to nor was he your most straightforward claim i guess just that the defendant was negligent and they need maintaining this essentially and therefore at least there was compared to fault they were they were partly at fault but i thought through was that if you hire someone to come in and repair something you don't owe any duty to them and they're responsible for taking all the safety car sions to make sure there's not a problem so i hire someone to do some work at my home i made the negligent in maintaining something but you expect the worker to protect himself against things like that is that not the rule your honor do i have a duty contractor who's hired to come and work on to install power lines and you not example to quote notes that the contractor isn't responsible for replacing the power poles pull themselves when really exploded and that condition a role for the maintenance and care provided but after trucking well chevron was one totally different situation it was they get new control the electric power question of whether there was a duty to a rd party not the independent contractor himself your honor in general the absolutely good was employed by an independent contractor he did not shut off the power that was near me when it was paid that's exactly what i'm trying to get at there are three parties in the chevrons which just refuse chevron situation the employee the independent contractor and then the company that why does that situation map onto a situation in which you've got the company why did the company oh duty to the independent contractor in self and that is a different situation than one where there is a rd party bigger at least i don't see how the doctrine would necessarily map onto that situation that we have here where there are part of the doctrine applies directly because it is the contractors negligence the cases you cited and perhaps a game you want to come wrong were situations where you had exactly this jones versus chevron phenomenon company independent contractor does the company or do you to the rd party your own are these three cases stand because of the premise that each owner is responsible for their own negligence they are the ones that maintained and repair their crane the independent contractor language and direct control is a red herring literally they called their one of the determine how that crane was maintained repaired for a number of years before this  contributed absolutely nothing to the circumstances that resulted in his death that that rule had already saying well could was already never just in the manner in which they had maintained and dramatically different mr robinson in your scenario is not an independent contractor that was retained by kirk to do work you something on the street driving a car how are those two things the same th kelly has made me wonder if he had bleed and bled the the air out of the tire so there was no pressure not to six train pressure in the tire for switching the tires to the independent contractor to protect them don't we expect independent contractors to take the necessary steps to protect themselves each little three cases make it clear that we cannot  an independent contractor and more particularly occur trucking retained no control over the matter or methods mr robinson's the answer to that question is yes the record is clear that the district court's decision is well supported by the undisputed facts and wyoming law the overwhelming majority of cases decided by the wild mean supreme court the court has held found no duty and the district court's decision here is consistent with those cases now before i turn to my prepared remarks i'd like to discuss at least one of the questions raised by the court to mr country and particularly the question about the rule respecting employer independent contractor liability in the jones case and that's jones versus chevron usa while mean supreme court said an owner is not obligated to protect the employees of an independent contractor from the hazards which are incidental to our part of the very work the contractor was hired to perform here mr robinson was hired to repair  danger involved in to adjust their methods of work accordingly and that's because an owner hires the independent contractor because of their our expertise in the type of work and that's what occurred here allegedly what it failed to maintain her arguments are attempts to impose general negligence principles and the specific context of employer independent contractor by the letter and those principles don't there's an exception and when the employer exercises control what does that mean the wyoming supreme court says it's it's not as much control necessary as would be necessary to make the independent contractor an employee you don't have to have control of the matter or methods whatever the standard is m controlling the the worker so what is it it's less than that it is control why isn't telling someone you switched the tires why isn't that enough i don't  don't have any way to grasp whether it's enough or not without some more guidance and i couldn't find that well st i think that we turn to be the good the jones case itself seven dropped the distinction pursuant to that section an employer can tell and independent contractor to start or stop or it can make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed or can prescribe failed to stop the vibration becomes the main issue here with what you've done so far so why don't what will it be just a suggestion there's no problem but the allegation i think is that the owner then said do with this way reduce the vibration by switching the wheels what that where does that fit in the section for had called mr robinson and said hey we want you to come to this this truck stop and we want you to switch the internet or wheels or trucking when we have been liable in that scenario because it didn't tell mr robinson how to do that rather mr robinson and he alone controlled one what equipment he used he instructed upon clay robinson to bring railroad ties and certain other question to mr robinson and he alone controlled the that st tightening the studs and martin lug nuts then loosening and tightening them several times and taking the lock it's used to hold the wheel on the hob off and comparing it to that from another and then finally trying the lock from the other wheel on the outer wheel and most importantly rd mr robinson and he alone controlled the matter and methods by which he switched the wheels including choosing not to deflate the time stamp directly in front of it and the manner and order and which he took off the studs he exercised control over the matter of his work the method of it the operat found a duty found that the employer had retained control where merit control the pressure of its well the equipment used to control it may actually prove the equipment purchase by an independent contractor  alteration of deviation but here's how you do it so this case is very distinguishable from that and one of the factors that i want to highlight is here quote trucking did not have expertise in soap service you multi piece you know  reason occurred truckie call that mr robbins because he was the expert they knew how to do it but should know how to fix the wobbling we should know what safety precautions to take to keep himself safe trucking didn't have that him go down in there and mark it was scanty and they air this court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer and the court said earle liability to arise the owner must go beyond making general for most jones is it promises liability here we're not talking promises like bill now jones is still relevant or with respect to the general rule and the two exceptions there in jones and now the scenario could possibly be different for example while he was working on this wheel the boom from the crane fell on him an airplane just couldn't possibly argue that her truck even had a duty to provide a safe  didn't control the man or a method of process and accordingly there is no liability that's the result in a while court would reach it's consistent with the vast majority  relevant to whether her exercise control over the aspect of mr robinson's were hostages and over how to do a method in a manner so it's really not the spoliation really is and isn't relevant either