Skip To Content
Published By Jason T. LaRocco

January 20, 2026

Personal injury Plaintiffs continued to push the boundaries of admissible evidence in support of agency liability in 2025. This includes attempts to introduce into evidence safety guidelines issued by companies to independent contractors to assist with promoting workplace safety, even in the absence of traditional evidence used to support agency liability such as direct supervision, supplying the tools for the job, or direct payment of the worker’s salary.   

Let’s let that sink in for a moment.

Plaintiffs are arguing that liability should be imposed on companies simply because they may have issued a safety manual, required independent contractors to go through criminal background checks or verification of safety training that is particular to the nature of the work being conducted. These efforts at “weaponizing” safety practices are designed to pursue additional indemnification benefits under a remotely involved defendant’s insurance policy or simply to extract additional cost-of-defense settlements from an additional party. These efforts raise serious public policy concerns, as they could ultimately undermine the idea of promoting safety.  

Some jurisdictions have recognized the difference between promoting safety and actual control over a worker and have refused to find that safety practices demonstrate agency liability:

Many jurisdictions, however, continue to allow evidence of safety practices to be presented to a jury in support of agency liability claims. Therefore, companies must be proactive when responding to these types of claims and should consider the following:  

Know your jurisdiction’s legal test for imposing agency liability  

  • This shall be the road map for your defenses.  
  • Map each factor to the evidence you can produce.

Make sure you have a genuine business-to-business relationship

  • Confirm that the contractor is a business entity, has its own business license, its own branding, website, and different clients.
  • Confirm that the contractor sets its own rates, bears its own expenses, and invests in its own tools.
  • Document that the contractor retains the right to hire, supervise, and terminate its own workers.

Limit control to outcomes, not the process

  • Define deliverables, deadlines, and quality standards.  Avoid dictating methods, schedules, or day-to-day supervision.
  • Avoid timekeeping if possible. If necessary, ensure freedom over when or how the work is performed and tie oversight to deliverables and not attendance.  

Document it properly

  • Make sure your contract clearly defines the outside vendor as an independent contractor and that it controls the means and methods for how the work shall be performed.
  • Avoid non-compete or broad control clauses that may suggest an employment relationship.
  • Purchase orders or invoices should be used. Not payroll.
  • No employee handbook acknowledgments.  

Litigation Best Practices

  • Produce documentation showing the independent nature of the parties.
  • Introduce detailed and substantial evidence showing how the companies are in different lines of business to provide context for the absence of control.  
  • Provide the jury with visual evidence demonstrating differences between the companies. For example, Company A may have an office with a floor of employees in cubicles scheduling transportation. Company B may have a parking lot full of transportation vehicles and drivers. These are very different businesses.

We can expect the battle over agency liability claims to continue into 2026. However, with due diligence, companies will be in a stronger position to defend against these claims and obtain more favorable outcomes while continuing to promote and encourage outside safety practices and remain focused on the outcomes of the work.

For more information, contact RRD litigation attorney Jason T. LaRocco at jlarocco@regerlaw.com or call 215-495-6505.