Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Vicarious Liability Of Principal For Acts Of Agent

11 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Vicarious Liability Of Principal For Acts Of AgentQuestion 1 of 11

Horizon Properties, Inc. owns a commercial office building. It hired Blastco, Inc., an independent contractor, to demolish an interior wall using explosives. The contract required Blastco to obtain all permits and indemnify Horizon for any loss. During the blast, due to Blastco's failure to follow industry safety standards, debris injured a pedestrian standing on the public sidewalk outside.

Is Horizon liable for Blastco's negligence?

Yes, because blasting poses a peculiar risk of harm,and the duty to take precautions is nondelegable.

No, because Blastco was an independent contractor and Horizon did not control the details of the demolition.

No, because Blastco agreed to indemnify Horizon for any loss, shifting all risk of loss to Blastco.

Yes, because Horizon, as a landowner,is strictly liable for all injuries on the abutting public sidewalk.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Vicarious Liability Of Principal For Acts Of Agent

Practice Vicarious Liability Of Principal For Acts Of Agent in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Vicarious Liability Of Principal For Acts Of Agent, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is Horizon liable for Blastco's negligence?

Yes, because blasting poses a peculiar risk of harm,and the duty to take precautions is nondelegable. (correct answer)
No, because Blastco was an independent contractor and Horizon did not control the details of the demolition.
No, because Blastco agreed to indemnify Horizon for any loss, shifting all risk of loss to Blastco.
Yes, because Horizon, as a landowner,is strictly liable for all injuries on the abutting public sidewalk.

Explanation: When you see a property owner hiring an independent contractor, the default rule is no vicarious liability. But the key twist here is the nature of the work: blasting is a classic "peculiar risk" activity. Because it poses a foreseeable risk of serious harm unless special precautions are taken, the landowner owes a nondelegable duty to the public to see that those precautions are used. Horizon cannot transfer that duty by hiring a contractor, so it remains liable for Blastco's failure to follow industry safety standards. The "independent contractor and no control" argument points to the general rule, but it ignores this well-recognized exception for inherently dangerous work. Similarly, the "Blastco agreed to indemnify" argument confuses contract rights with tort duties: the indemnity may allow Horizon to recover from Blastco, but it does not shield Horizon from the pedestrian's claim. Finally, the "landowner is strictly liable for all injuries on the abutting sidewalk" choice is overbroad—there is no blanket strict liability for every sidewalk injury. The liability here rests on the nondelegable duty arising from blasting, not on sidewalk ownership. On exam day, when you see explosives, excavation, or other inherently dangerous activities, flag "nondelegable duty" immediately. General contractor rules will not save the landowner, and indemnity clauses only affect who pays later, not who can be sued now.

Question 2

Rafael and Luis were both hourly employees at a warehouse. They had a long-running personal dispute over a romantic partner. One afternoon, while both were on a break, Luis walked over to Rafael's workstation, shouted at him, and slapped him across the face.

Is the warehouse vicariously liable for Luis's battery?

No, because Luis's battery arose from a purely personal dispute and was not actuated by any purpose to serve his employer. (correct answer)
Yes, because the altercation occurred during working hours and on the employer's premises, and employers are liable for workplace violence by employees.
Yes, because Luis used work time and a work break to commit the tort, making the act incidental to his employment.
No, because intentional torts are never within the scope of an employee's employment.

Explanation: This question tests vicarious liability under respondeat superior: an employer is liable for an employee's tort only if the act was committed within the scope of employment. When you see workplace violence, the key isn't just where or when it happened — it's whether the employee's conduct was actuated by apurpose to serve the employer. Here, Luis's battery fails that test. His attack onto Rafael arose from along-running personal dispute over aromantic partner. That motive was purely personal, with no intended benefit tothe warehouse. Therefore the warehouse isnot vicariously liable. correctly stated in choice saying "No, because Luis's battery arose from apurely personal dispute and was not actuated by any purpose to serve his employer." The choice saying "Yes, because the altercation occurred during working hours and on the employer's premises" reflects atiming-and-place trap. Mere occurrence at work does not make conduct within scope; an employer is notstrictlyliable for all workplace violence. Similarly, the choice arguing "Yes, because Luis used work time and a work break" confuses coincidence with causation. Using abreak to pursue aprivate dispute isnot "incidental to employment"; incidental acts are those reasonably related to tasks the employee was hired to perform, not merely events happening while on the clock. Finally, "No, because intentional torts are never within scope" is too absolute. Intentional torts can be within scope when the employee acts, even aggressively, to advance the employer's interests — e.g., abouncer ejecting apatron. The problem isnthe intention, it'sthe personal motive. So when analyzing vicarious liability, focus on motive: was the employee serving the employer's business or pursuing apersonal grudge? Private disputes take the conduct outside scope, regardless of work time or location.

Question 3

Dominic works as a security guard at Northgate Mall under a written agreement labeling him an "independent contractor" and making him responsible for his own taxes and equipment. In practice, however, Northgate's security director assigns Dominic's shifts and patrol posts, prescribes the mall's incident-response procedures, requires him to wear a uniform bearing the mall's logo, and may discharge him at will. The mall's security manual prohibits guards from using a baton except in self-defense. One evening, while on duty, Dominic confronts a teenager spray-painting graffiti on a mall wall. Still angry over a reprimand he received earlier that day, Dominic strikes the teenager with his baton, breaking the teenager's arm. The teenager sues Northgate, asserting vicarious liability.

Which of the following is the most accurate statement?

Northgate is not liable because the written agreement labels Dominic an independent contractor and makes him responsible for his own taxes and equipment, and a principal is not vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts.
Northgate is not liable because Dominic violated the mall's express policy against using a baton except in self-defense, and an employer is not vicariously liable for acts an employee was expressly forbidden to commit.
Northgate is liable because Dominic was its employee acting within the scope of his employment when he struck the teenager, even though the force violated the mall's policy and his anger was a concurrent motive. (correct answer)
Northgate is not liable because Dominic's anger over the reprimand shows that the assault was an independent course of conduct motivated by personal purposes rather than a purpose to serve Northgate.

Explanation: Whenever you see vicarious liability, focus on two things: whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor, and whether the tort occurred within the scope of employment. Labels don't control — actual control does. Here, Northgate's security director assigns shifts, sets procedures, requires a uniform, and can fire Dominic at will. That makes Dominic an employee despite the written "independent contractor" agreement. As an employee, Dominic was acting within the scope when he confronted the teenager spray-painting graffiti — that was squarely within his security-guard duties. Using a baton was foreseeable enough, even though the mall policy allowed it only in self-defense. An employer can be liable for an employee's unauthorized manner of performing the job, especially when the act is triggered by a work-related situation. Now the wrong answers: Northgate is not shielded merely because the contract calls Dominic an independent contractor; substance beats form. Nor is the express baton policy a magic shield — violating a policy doesn't automatically remove an act from scope. And Dominic's anger over the reprimand doesn't make the assault purely personal: he struck someone he was confronting in his employer's interest, so a concurrent personal motive doesn't defeat liability. Study tip: for scope questions, ask whether the act occurred during work time, at a work place, and involved conduct of the kind the employee was hired to perform. If yes, the employer is likely liable even if the employee used poor judgment or disobeyed instructions.

Question 4

Alma is an electrician employed by Bright Electric, Co. She works fixed daytime hours at Bright's shop. One evening at 11 pm, Bright's on-call service dispatcher called Alma and asked her to respond to an emergency water-heater failure at a commercial customer's building. Alma lives 10 miles from the customer. Using her personal vehicle and her own tools, she drove directly from her home to the customer's building. En route, she negligently re-ended another car.

Is Bright vicariously liable for Alma's negligence?

No, because Alma was commuting from home to a job site, and the coming-and-going rule bars vicarious liability for ordinary commutes.
No, because Alma was not yet at work and Bright had no right to control her driving until she arrived at the customer's premises.
Yes, because Alma was responding to an after-hours emergency summons from her employer, so her travel served Bright's business rather than being a purely personal commute. (correct answer)
Yes, because Bright's need for Alma to be at the customer's building caused her to drive, and but-for causation is enough to make an employer liable for an employee's travel.

Explanation: Whenever you see an employer-liability question, ask whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment when the tort occurred. An ordinary commute is usually outside that scope because the employee is furthering a personal purpose—getting to work. But the coming-and-going rule has an important exception: when an employee is summoned to respond to an after-hours emergency, the travel becomes part of the employer's business. Because Bright's dispatcher called Alma at 11 pm and asked her to handle a water-heater failure, her drive directly served Bright's commercial interests, not just her own daily routine. So Bright is vicariously liable for her negligent driving. The first wrong answer misapplies the coming-and-going rule; it ignores the emergency-call exception that converts this trip into work-related travel. The second wrong answer overstates the control requirement—an employer need not control every detail of an employee's conduct; the question is whether the employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business, and Alma was. The final wrong answer states that but-for causation alone is enough; causation is necessary but not sufficient because the employee must also be within the scope of employment. The correct result is that the emergency summons made Alma's travel serve Bright's business, so vicarious liability applies. Study tip: for scope-of-employment questions, check for exceptions like emergency calls, employer-required travel, or special benefits to the employer—these signals often overcome the general coming-and-going rule.

Question 5

SecureLife Insurance Co. employs Dana as a financial services representative. Her job is marketing SecureLife annuity products and helping customers complete applications. SecureLife's advertising features Dana in its offices and refers to her as a trusted SecureLife advisor. Dana is expressly forbidden to promise that any product is guaranteed or risk-free. At a meeting with a customer at SecureLife's office, Dana told him a particular annuity was backed by SecureLife, had him sign an application, and instructed him to transfer funds from his bank to SecureLife's account. She then caused the funds to be diverted to a shell company she controlled and disappeared.

Is SecureLife vicariously liable for Dana's fraud?

No, because Dana's promise of a guaranteed return was expressly forbidden by SecureLife, so any guarantee was outside her authority.
Yes, because SecureLife placed Dana in a position of apparent authority, the customer reasonably relied on that authority, and Dana's self-dealing does not defeat vicarious liability. (correct answer)
No, because Dana acted for her own benefit only, and an agent's adverse acts are categorically outside the scope of employment.
Yes, because an employer is strictly liable for any fraudulent statement made by its employee during business hours, regardless of the employee's position or the plaintiff's reliance.

Explanation: When you see a question about employer liability for an employee's fraud, first ask: did the employer "cloak" the employee with apparent authority? Apparent authority arises when the principal's conduct leads a third party to reasonably believe the agent has authority, and the third party relies on that belief. Here, SecureLife advertised Dana as a "trusted advisor" and held meetings in its office—this is a classic manifestation of authority to the customer. The customer reasonably relied on that position when he signed the application and transferred funds. The key twist is Dana's self-dealing. An agent's adverse or self-serving motives do not defeat vicarious liability if the agent acted within the scope of apparent authority; the principal is liable for misrepresentations made by an agent who appears authorized to make them, even if the agent secretly plans to keep the money. Now, the distractors. The choice saying "No, because Dana's promise of a guaranteed return was expressly forbidden" is a trap—an internal prohibition does not limit apparent authority unless the third party knew of it. The choice claiming "No, because Dana acted for her own benefit only" misstates the law; while pure self-dealing might remove respondeat superior liability, it does not bar liability under apparent authority. Finally, the choice stating "Yes, because an employer is strictly liable for any fraudulent statement during business hours" is too broad—the statement must be within the agent's apparent or actual scope, and reliance is required; it's not strict liability for all statements. Strategy tip: On the bar exam, distinguish between respondeat superior (scope of employment) and apparent authority (estoppel). When the employee is in a position to transact business for the principal, assume liability for fraud even if the employee pockets the proceeds—unless the third party knew of the lack of authority.

Question 6

Kyle works for FreshBite, a catering company, as a delivery driver. FreshBite has a written policy expressly prohibiting its drivers from exceeding posted speed limits. One afternoon, while delivering an order to a wedding reception, Kyle realized he was running late. He drove 15 miles per hour over the speed limit to make the delivery on time, and collided with a car, injuring the driver.

Is FreshBite vicariously liable for Kyle's negligence?

No, because Kyle violated an express written policy, and employers cannot be vicariously liable for acts they have expressly prohibited.
No, because speeding was an independent, unauthorized act that served Kyle's own interest in avoiding lateness, not FreshBite's business.
Yes, because Kyle was acting within the scope of his employment while making a delivery for FreshBite, and a prohibited means of performing an assigned task can still be within scope. (correct answer)
Yes, because an employer is strictly liable whenever an employee drives a company vehicle, even if the employee is off duty or on a personal errand.

Explanation: When you see a vicarious liability question, focus on one central issue: was the employee acting within the scope of employment? Scope includes conduct of the kind the employee was hired to perform, occurring within authorized time and space, and at least partly motivated to serve the employer. Here, Kyle was a delivery driver driving for FreshBite to a wedding reception. Delivering the order was exactly his job. Speeding was simply his prohibited way of performing that assigned task, and a prohibited means of performing a job can still be within the scope of employment. Therefore, FreshBite is vicariously liable. The first wrong answer claims no liability because FreshBite expressly prohibited speeding. That is a trap: an employer can be liable for an employee's forbidden act if the employee is still doing the job, just in an unauthorized manner. The second wrong answer says speeding was an independent act serving Kyle's own interest in avoiding lateness. Having a personal motive does not remove him from scope, especially because timely delivery also served FreshBite. The strict-liability answer is also wrong: an employer is not automatically liable just because an employee drives a company vehicle; an off-duty personal errand would fall outside scope. Study tip: ask whether the employee was "going about the employer's business in a forbidden way" versus "abandoning the employer's business entirely." If they are still advancing the employer's work, express policies and mixed motives usually do not defeat liability.

Question 7

Valley Medical Center has an emergency department staffed entirely by physicians who are independent contractors under an arrangement with EM Docs, P.C. The hospital's entrance signs read 'Valley Medical Center Emergency Physicians'; the physicians wear hospital badges and use hospital-owned examination rooms. No patient is asked to choose a physician, and patients are not told that the physicians are independent contractors. Roland came to the emergency department with chest pain and was treated by Dr. Chen, one of the independent contractor physicians. Dr. Chen failed to diagnose a heart attack, causing injury.

Is Valley Medical Center vicariously liable for Dr. Chen's malpractice?

No, because Dr. Chen was an independent contractor and no actual agency relationship existed between her and Valley.
No, because a hospital cannot form an apparent agency with a physician unless the patient has had prior dealings with that physician.
Yes, because Valley held itself out as providing emergency care and Dr. Chen's services were rendered under circumstances that made it reasonable for Roland to rely on Valley. (correct answer)
Yes, because hospitals are subject to strict liability for misdiagnoses occurring in their emergency departments, regardless of staffing arrangements.

Explanation: Whenever you see a hospital-liability question involving an emergency-room physician, think about apparent agency: a hospital can be liable for an independent contractor's malpractice if it holds itself out as providing the care and the patient reasonably relies on that holding. Actual employment is not required. Here, Valley held itself out through its signs, the physicians' hospital badges, and the hospital-owned exam rooms. Roland was not asked to choose a physician and was not told the doctors were independent contractors, so it was reasonable for him to rely on Valley for emergency treatment. That makes the "yes" answer correct: Valley held itself out as providing emergency care and Dr. Chen's services were rendered under circumstances that made Roland's reliance reasonable. The first wrong answer says there is no liability because Dr. Chen was an independent contractor and no actual agency existed. That misses the rule: apparent agency is enough, so the absence of an actual agency relationship does not defeat liability. The second wrong answer says a hospital cannot form apparent agency unless the patient had prior dealings with that physician. That is not the law — prior dealings are not required; the hospital's own holding out is what matters. The fourth wrong answer claims hospitals are strictly liable for emergency-department misdiagnoses. That is also incorrect: liability here is vicarious under apparent agency, not strict liability. On exam day, when you see "independent contractor physician" in a hospital, ask two things: Did the hospital hold the physician out as its own? Did the patient reasonably rely? If yes to both, the hospital is vicariously liable.

Question 8

Apex Delivery Network enters into a written agreement with Priya labeling her an independent contractor. Priya uses her own car, chooses which shifts to work, and selects her own routes. The Apex app automatically assigns delivery orders, but allows her to reject or swap any assignment without penalty. Apex requires all orders be fulfilled by the promised time but does not train, supervise, or control how Priya makes deliveries. Apex pays her per delivery with no taxes withheld. One evening, while Priya was driving to deliver an Apex order, she ran a red light because she was checking the app for the next address, injuring a pedestrian.

Is Apex vicariously liable for Priya's negligence?

No, because Priya chose her own hours, routes, and methods, used her own car, and Apex did not supervise her work; she is therefore an independent contractor. (correct answer)
Yes, because Apex's scheduling algorithm and deadlines controlled when and whether deliveries were made, which is sufficient to establish an employment relationship.
Yes, because Priya was delivering an Apex order and the trip conferred an economic benefit on Apex at the time of the collision.
Yes, because Apex's written agreement labeling Priya an independent contractor cannot override the economic reality that she performs services integral to Apex's business.

Explanation: This question tests vicarious liability for the torts of an independent contractor. The touchstone is whether the principal controls, or has the right to control, the manner and means of the work—not just the result. Here, Priya uses her own car, chooses shifts and routes, can reject or swap assignments, and receives no training or supervision. Apex merely requires on-time delivery, which is a result, not a method. She is therefore an independent contractor, so the choice that says "no because Priya chose her own hours, routes, and methods, used her own car, and Apex did not supervise her work" is correct. The choice relying on Apex's scheduling algorithm and deadlines is wrong: deadlines are outcome requirements, and Priya can reject or swap assignments, so Apex does not control whether she works. The choice relying on the delivery conferring an economic benefit is wrong because benefit alone never establishes vicarious liability—independent contractors always benefit the principal. The choice relying on "economic reality" and "integral to the business" is wrong because that is a statutory test for employee status (e.g., FLSA), not the common-law control test for tort liability. The written agreement labeling her independent contractor is consistent with the actual facts, so there is no need to override it. Bar tip: When you see "independent contractor" on a torts question, focus on control over the "how"—routes, hours, equipment, supervision. Those details decide liability.

Question 9

Ace Insurance Co. terminated Bob's status as an agent after Bob moved to another state. Ace did not notify its existing policyholders of the termination. Bob, however, kept an old box of Ace application forms. Pat, a longtime policyholder, had paid premiums to Bob for years, and Ace had permitted Bob to collect those premiums. After the termination, Bob told Pat he could handle her renewal, and she paid him $1,000 in cash for a renewal premium. Bob gave her a receipt on a blank Ace form, kept the cash, and disappeared. Ace refused to credit Pat's policy, and Pat sues Ace.

Is Ace liable to Pat for Bob's conduct?

No, because Ace terminated Bob's actual authority, and an agent cannot create apparent authority in himself after actual authority ends.
No, because Pat's payment of cash to Bob, rather than to Ace, was not reasonable reliance on apparent authority.
Yes, because an agent's apparent authority continues until the principal gives actual notice to third parties, regardless of whether the principal's prior manifestations caused reliance.
Yes, because Ace had clothed Bob with apparent authority to collect premiums from Pat and did not notify Pat of the termination, so Bob's collection remained within apparent authority. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see an agency question, ask: Did the principal's own words or conduct create the appearance of authority, did the third party rely on that appearance, and was the third party notified of termination? Here, Ace had allowed Bob to collect Pat's premiums for years, which was a manifestation to Pat that Bob had authority to receive payments. Ace's failure to notify Pat after terminating Bob meant Bob's apparent authority continued. Pat's payment to Bob was reasonable because that was exactly how she had always paid, and the blank Ace receipt reinforced the appearance. So Ace is liable. The correct answer is the one recognizing that Ace clothed Bob with apparent authority and gave no notice. The "no, because actual authority ended" choice confuses actual with apparent authority: termination ends actual authority, but it does not automatically end apparent authority unless notice is given. The "cash payment was unreasonable" choice fails because Pat's past practice made cash payment to Bob reasonable. The "yes, because apparent authority continues until actual notice regardless of prior manifestations" choice overstates the rule—apparent authority requires the principal's prior manifestations that caused reliance; it does not arise from Bob's own conduct alone. Finally, the "no because an agent cannot create apparent authority after termination" choice misstates the law: the agent cannot create it solely by his own acts, but Ace's earlier conduct had already created it. Study tip: distinguish actual authority (what the principal privately gives) from apparent authority (what the principal leads others to believe). A terminated agent can still bind the principal if no notice was given to those who previously reasonably relied.

Question 10

Marisol works for Rapid Delivery Co. as a delivery driver. One afternoon, while making deliveries on her assigned route, she decided to stop at a friend's apartment for about 45 minutes to return a borrowed bicycle. While leaving the friend's apartment building parking lot, she began driving back toward her next delivery stop. At that moment, she negligently ran a stop sign and collided with a cyclist. Rapid Delivery Co. has no policy prohibiting personal use of delivery vans.

Is Rapid Delivery Co. vicariously liable for Marisol's negligence?

No, because Marisol's stop was a substantial personal deviation that took her outside the scope of her employment. An employee's tort after a frolic cannot be within scope until the employee reports back to the employer's place of business.
Yes, because after completing the personal detour she resumed her employment duties, and the accident occurred while she was driving toward her next delivery stop. (correct answer)
No, because Rapid Delivery Co. did not authorize Marisol to use the van for personal errands.
Yes, because Rapid Delivery Co. had entrusted Marisol with the van, and an employer is strictly liable for negligent operations of a vehicle entrusted to an employee.

Explanation: Whenever you see respondeat superior, focus on one question: was the employee acting within the scope of employment when the tort occurred? A personal errand can take an employee outside that scope, but it does not permanently remove her. Marisol's 45-minute stop was a classic "frolic" — a substantial personal deviation — so the employer would not have been liable if she had hit the cyclist during the stop itself. But the accident happened after she finished the personal errand and was driving toward her next delivery stop. A delivery driver's work includes traveling between deliveries, so at that moment she had re-entered the scope of her employment. Rapid is vicariously liable even though Rapid had no policy authorizing personal use; that fact affects discipline, not respondeat. Why the other choices miss this? The answer saying she must report back to Rapid's place of business before scope resumes is too rigid: a route-based employee resumes her duties when she returns to her assigned work, not when she physically checks in at headquarters. Likewise, the argument that Rapid did not authorize personal use confuses authorization with scope — an employer can be liable for an employee's unauthorized conduct if it occurs within the course of work. Finally, the entrustment choice is wrong because vicarious liability is not strict just because the employer entrusted the van; there must be negligence within the scope of employment, and here that standard is satisfied because she was back on duty. Study tip: distinguish a "frolic" (a pause that serves only personal purposes) from a completed detour; once the employee resumes the employer's business, liability can return with her.

Question 11

Tempo Staffing, Inc. supplies temporary workers to a manufacturing plant owned by Ajax Manufacturing Co. Tempo recruits, hires, pays, and may discipline workers. Ajax provides the equipment, specifies the jobs to be done, and directly supervises and controls how the workers perform each task. Tempo does not supervise Ned's work at Ajax. Ned, a Tempo employee, was assigned to Ajax for six months. One day, while operating a forklift under the direction of an Ajax shift supervisor, Ned negligently backed into a visitor, injuring her.

Which entity is vicariously liable for Ned's negligence?

Only Tempo, because Ned was hired, paid, and could be discharged only by Tempo, making Tempo his sole employer at law.
Both Tempo and Ajax, because general and special employers are both liable for the torts of a borrowed employee.
Neither, because the forklift was a dangerous instrumentality and its manufacturer remains strictly liable for injuries caused by its operation.
Only Ajax, because Ajax had the right to control the manner in which Ned performed his work at the time of the injury, making Ajax the special employer to whom vicarious liability attaches. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a question about temporary workers or "borrowed employees," think about who controls the details of the work at the moment of injury. Under the borrowed-servant doctrine, a general employer like Tempo may handle hiring, payroll, and discipline, but vicarious liability follows the right to control the manner and means of the work. Here Ajax supplied the equipment, specified the jobs, and directly supervised Ned's work—including directing him to back the forklift. Thus Ajax, as the special employer, had the right to control how Ned performed his task, so Ajax alone is vicariously liable for his negligence. The choice that Tempo is the sole employer because it hired, paid, and could discharge Ned focuses on general employment.status, but that does not defeat the special employer's liability as the actual controller of the work. The choice that both Tempo and Ajax are liable reflects a common misconception: dual employment may exist for some purposes, but in tort, vicarious liability is not automatically imposed on both; it attaches to the employer exercising control over the employee's conduct at the time. The choice that neither is liable because a forklift is a dangerous instrumentality and its manufacturer remains strictly liable confuses products liability with negligence. A negligent operator's employer is responsible for the operator's torts; the forklift manufacturer is not liable merely because the machine was involved. Study tip: For borrowed-employee questions, ask "Which entity directed the physical details of the work at the moment of the injury?" That entity is the special employer, and the special employer bears vicarious liability.