section 414, which provides: One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d at 783 (quoting Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 414 (1965)); see also Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex.1985). The right to control may be shown either by explicit contractual assignment, which is generally a question of law for the court, or by the actual exercise of control, which is generally a question of fact for the jury. Shell Oil Co. v. Khan, 138 S.W.3d 288, 292 (Tex.2004); see also Harrison, 70 S.W.3d at 783 (<HOLDING>). The Moritz court distinguished the duty of a
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 recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor 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 contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road 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