would have been much greater for them to have set it off in such a manner as to have it secured with chains or with any other means to make sure that it doesn't accidentally fall on the them and the work and that is was not the best and then because he had difficulty speaking because of the stroke and he said that he had worked on to other locations where they had bracing for what he called safety was the talks about why the general contractor is not a good position to assure that is some kind of practice that side to clear and the reason is because the sub contractor hires fires trains and that mr caroll would be permitted to say ok boys here's how we're going to do it now i want to train here i want change here i've got my home cranes i've got my own change we're going to set it up this way just  any liability on works of art or not and to say that under these facts the law does not protect an individual hired by a major company to do work at his direction strikes me everybody is an independent contractor and say go all in charge of your own safety i said that this result is an of macs and i left a word for it it's more colorful but i might garble you but it used true and i c twenty three eighty six that makes you believe they could do it answer because i showed them how to couples like i didn't do it myself but i showed them where the balls were at the cut that you could perhaps misunderstood if you go past all of that and go back to the common law and that little is theory i still fail to see why the independent contractor wouldn't be entitled the summary judgment and why the issue of reasonable foreseeability how is it reasonably foreseeable and of course we all know that no legal duty arises unless there is reasonable for here and independent contractor with twenty five years of experience as an experienced welder torture how is it reasonably foreseeable that he would can create this type of  incident or an accident leading to this type of injury he almost he almost didn't create it holland eugene holland very experienced expert says that cutting these massive pieces  corral twenty five years of experience then let's also hang on for murderous it tremendous amount of experience so that much more sophisticated ways we're talking about people here with alledged trees had safety supervisors and who had i need to address the first two counts the general negligence principle it's been said more than once today it was certainly said in r and in the plaintiff's reply brief that we have changed our these general principles out there they're controlling as opposed to restating what you're saying but i'm saying is taking taking the position that there are these general negligence principles that are controlling our brief was misquoted  we said at the beginning of plaintiff's quote he dropped the words he sighs without any indication that that word was in there immediately after the first sentence he part in this case but rather as persuasive authority and reputation of defendant argument that the distinction this drawn in the law between independent contractors and law is very clear it's not where the work is being done it's whether you're controlling the means and methods of the work being done in effect at page well you do have to define of your question and that was that the experts say right expert can make that statement all they want the question comes whether there is a duty construction you happen to be the general and you're bringing in a bricklayer you have the duty to provide a proper scaffold to that but clear yet that girls with a jacket that's why doesn't they're trying to it he was he was not directing them instructing them but certainly not ordering them to do it in any other way then the way they wanted to do it he just was pointing out  but that you know there was a question that came up and there's discussion they came up about this this you know the fact that you know there's this little micro piece or whatever it was  nervous gets involved in terms of the skill level of the individual it hires but chooses not to make sure that that individual who has the necessary skills will perform the job or just wants done in a safe to the roof or you bring a group for it like to think you know once but i mean you've heard from your neighbor yet you know hit him and he's grabbing i you know when i when we hear refer some years ago we hired him because we saw him working across the their compensation insurance to make sure that its workers are copper and you want to make sure that this person has the the insurance to insulate you from any liability and to that extent that many employees there is a choice to sub out this work like you chose to but you chose to to hire a rougher or you chose to hire anyone you please and they can they can we you can the classic factors of of determining whether duty exists or not back and just generally it is whether the whether the law should impose the beauty of here i'm nervous to make sure that the work the owner general wherever his retain control that's where we get back now into the four forty unless there is this this new tension of control in him and that was the point i think of some  questioning that there that there have been no retain control retain control means under the law and under a while first district walk a lot more than the ability to generally supervise a sec contractor himself who is doing the very same thing i think i think you are because because the contractor if there's a legal duty on the part of the federal contractor that i visit i think almost if if if there's a legal duty it's because there's been mean that they have failed to meet their reasonable duty of care and doesn't mind because because there's no duty to provide it if you're an independent contractor i mean it is there's no breach until there's because i wrote a dissent i remember it and he he relied on the expert who contended that the flooring of the pool reflected that that was greater than it actually was an  ahead remove rafters from underneath the roof or maybe if you remove the side walls and for some quirky strange reason says look i still want you to work at the building you know that you might be getting into something there secondly the homeowner who hire you that corral did something wrong that he did something unsafe that he did something that was different to what done before there is no evidence larson is the safety director weston says in his deposition i have no criticism to offer of how chorale did