Is an employer liable for the actions of an independent contractor?

It is well established as a general rule of English law that an employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents even though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit under the contract. Ever since Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499, 151 E.R. 509, it has been considered settled law that one employing another is not liable for his collateral negligence unless the relationship of master and servant existed between them. When is or is not the act collateral? It probably means nothing more than that the negligence required to impose liability upon the employer of an independent contractor must be negligence committed in doing the act itself which he is employed to do, and that negligence in other operations which, though connected with that work, are not themselves part of the work which he has contracted to do is not sufficient.