is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the [independent] contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way. 11 S.W.3d at 155 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 cmt. c (1965)). In turn, an owner or general contractor “can direct when and where an independent contractor does the work and can request information and reports about the work” without assuming vicarious liability. Fifth Club, 196 S.W.3d at 792. In limiting liability in this way, we have explained that imposing liability on owners and general contractors who stop work perceived as unsafe “would deter [them] from setting even minimal safety standards.” Dow Chem. Co. v. Bright, 89 S.W.3d 602, 607-09 (Tex.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Chapa, 11 S.W.3d at 156 (holding
holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that the right to preclude work from beginning and the implementation of a safework permit system were insufficient to establish actual control 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 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 party with legal control has the full right of control to permit whomever that party chooses to drive the vehicle