Generally, a person hiring an independent contractor to perform work is  not liable for injuries suffered by the contractor’s employees in performing that work under the Privette doctrine.  There are two exceptions to this rule.  The Kinsman exception which holds a hirer liable if it is a landowner and fails to disclose some tatent dangerous condition of the property to the contractor.  The Hooker exception imposes liability on a hirer that retains and exercises significant control over the way in which the contractor performs its work in a way that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury.  Merely retaining the right to control without actually exercising it is not enough.  Also, the control must be over the work the contractor is to perform rather than control over the site at which the work is performed.  And affirmative contribution requires more than merely not preventing the contractor or its employees from engaging in dangerous practices.  Here, Qualcomm did not retain or exercise control over the contractor’s work on the electric switches that Qualcomm had de-powered before the contractor began work, so it was not liable for the injuries the contractor’s worker suffered from an arc over on a different electric switch which had not, as the contractor knew, been depowered and which Qualcomm had left in a safe condition with a bolted on cover.