make sure no water was getting into the lines through the construction. Hatch’s uneontested declaration states that he spoke to Solomon directly and that Solomon assured him that he (Solomon) would “take measures to prevent the flow of water into the sewer system.” Furthermore, the trial court determined that at all relevant times, Solomon was in control of the job site. ¶ 25 Based on this record, the trial court did not err in determining that Hatch was not an active participant in causing the water flow issue and that his only liability was a result of his status as owner of the property rather than as an actively negligent party. See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (<HOLDING>); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App.
holding that indemnification provision did not expressly state the party was seeking indemnity for its own negligence so as to satisfy express negligence test holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity