See Camp, 553 F.3d at 507; Velichkov, 860 F.Supp.2d at 979. 18 .As the dissent in the court of appeals aptly noted, ’’[s]urely virtually every person who finds it necessary to hire a truck to haul a cargo also must tell the trucker where to get the cargo and where to haul it.” 413 S.W.3d at 157 (Campbell, J., dissenting); see also Schramm v. Foster, 341 F.Supp.2d 536, 550 (D.Md.2004) (instructing driver as to time and place of pick-up and delivery does not amount to an assumption of control or motor-carrier responsibility). 19 . As noted above, the trial court rendered a default judgment against Garcia for several million dollars for breaching these duties. 20 . See also Ellwood Tex. Forge Corp. v. Jones, 214 S.W.3d 693, 702-03 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 21 . Garcia testified Gonzalez told him that
holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control holding that if the putative employee has the discretion to adopt the means and methods he wishes to accomplish the required work he is an independent contractor