v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 606 F.2d 274, 276 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080, 100 S.Ct. 1031, 62 L.Ed.2d 763 (1980); Texaco, Inc. v. Pruitt, 396 F.2d 237, 240 (10th Cir.1968); Erwin v. Kern River Gas Transmission Co., 1997 WL 804238, *3, 1997 Tex.App. LEXIS 6685, *8 (addressing Utah law on issue). We believe the standard relied upon in these cases is correct, and we formally adopt the same. Elaboration on the contours of the standard is needed, however. ¶ 19 Under the “active participation” standard, a principal employer is subject to liability for injuries arising out of its independent contractor’s work if the employer is actively involved in, or asserts control over, the manner of performance of the contracted work. See Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 60 (Fla.1973) (<HOLDING>). Such an assertion of control occurs, for
holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work 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 under active participation standard principal employer must directly influence manner in which work is performed no duty arises from passive nonparticipation 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 your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work