Tom creighton hired destroy, inc., a demolition company, to level an old building on a busy downtown lot. destroy, inc. was given full rein to decide on the amount of explosives needed and the placement of the charges. security for the site on the day of the explosion was contracted out to a private security firm. when the appointed day arrived, the building was brought down. however, the building fell in a slightly different direction than that anticipated by destroy, inc. numerous pieces of adjoining property, both real and personal, were severely damaged. creighton claims that the use of an independent contractor such as destroy, inc. has insulated him from liability. how do you respond to creighton's claim?

It generally is true that a person hiring an independent contractor is not liable for any harm caused by the independent contractor or the independent contractor's employees. Exceptions to this general rule do exist. An exception exists for situations in which the work undertaken by the independent contractor is inherently dangerous. Demolition work accomplished through the use of explosives is just such inherently dangerous work. Creighton cannot hope to shield himself from his duty to protect the public from harm by delegating a dangerous task to another.

i'm not sure what you are asking, but it also served as a debtors colony, was ran by the trustees for 20 years until becoming a royal colony, and people had restrictions such as no slaves, and only 50 acres of land per person/ hope this !

- jack watson

answer; archaeologists;