ORDER OF THE COURT
AND NOW this 16th day of April, 2002, having considered the arguments and submissions of the parties, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s accompanying opinion of even date, it is hereby
ORDERED that the appellant’s motion to recuse District Judge Thomas K. Moore from this Panel is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is REVERSED, and REMANDED for a new trial consistent herewith.
OPINION OF THE COURT
HODGE, Judge.
In this appeal, we are required to consider whether the employer of an independent contractor can be liable for injuries to [635]*635the independent contractor’s employee under section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement”). At the close of the plaintiffs case, the Territorial Court granted the defendant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that section 414 of the Restatement does not allow the employee of the independent contractor to maintain an action for damages against the employer of the independent contractor. The court also ruled that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence to establish the defendant-landowner’s liability under section 343 of the Restatement. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 1996, Anita Figueroa (“Appellant”), a diner worker for United Ogden Services (“United Ogden”), fell near a salad bar at the Port-a-Kamp cafeteria on the premises of Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation (“HOVIC”). United Ogden is an independent contractor hired by HOV-IC to provide cleaning and laundry services, and to maintain the Port-a-Kamp cafeteria. As United Ogden’s employee, Figueroa was charged with restocking the salad bars in the cafeteria, preparing salads for the next shift, and generally maintaining the area around the salad bar. On October 24, 1996, while on a fifteen-minute break, Figueroa left the cafeteria’s kitchen area and walked through the dining area to the soda machines. On the way back to the kitchen, she slipped on water that had accumulated on the floor where a hose running from the salad bar had slipped from its drain. She sustained injuries to her wrist, leg and back.
Figueroa brought this negligence action against HOVIC, asserting various theories of liability, including the tort of negligent exercise of retained control as set forth in Restatement section 414. At the close of Figueroa’s evidence presented at trial, HOVIC moved for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial judge granted HOVIC’s motion and dismissed the action. This timely appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review.
This court has appellate jurisdiction to review judgments and orders of the Territorial Court in all civil cases. V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 4, § 33 (1997 & Supp. 2001); Revised Organic Act of 1954 § 23A.1 We exercise plenary review over a trial court’s judgment as a matter of law. Carty v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation, 42 V.I. 125, 78 F.Supp.2d 417 (D.V.I. 1999).
B. Liability for the Negligent Exercise of Retained Control under Restatement § 414.
The appellant was employed by United Ogden, an independent contractor hired by HOVIC to operate and maintain the cafeteria, and to provide personnel for laundry and janitorial services. Pursuant to its contract, HOVIC provided all necessary equipment while United Ogden was responsible for preparing and serving all meals in the cafeteria and for cleaning and maintaining the dining'and kitchen areas in accordance with HOVIC’s standards. [636]*636HOVIC repaired and modified the floor area of the cafeteria, installed white tiles on the floor and provided and installed the salad bars and draining mechanisms. At trial, Plaintiff relied upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 3432, 343A3, 4134, 4145, and 4166. The trial court granted HOVIC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs claims based on sections 413, 414 and 416, relying on Monk v. V.I. Water & Power Authority, 32 V.I. 425, 53 F.3d 1381 (3d Cir.1995) for the proposition that an independent contractor’s employees may not sue the eon-tractor’s employer under any provision of Chapter 15 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
1. Monk v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority
In Monk, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered “whether the word ‘others,’ in section 413 ... encompasses an independent contractor’s employees.” Monk, 53 F.3d at 1390. After extensive analysis, the court concluded that, under Virgin Islands law, “employees [637]*637of an independent contractor are not included within the protection of ‘others’ under the peculiar risk provisions of Chapter 15 of the Restatement.” Monk, 53 F.3d at 1393 (emphasis added). Therefore, with respect to Plaintiffs peculiar risk claims, premised on sections 413 and 416 of the Restatement, the trial court correctly applied Monk. Figueroa contends, however, that the trial court erred in relying on Monk to dismiss her claim under section 414, negligent exercise of retained control, because that section is not a peculiar risk provision. We are thus faced with the question of whether the reasoning and analysis of Monk was properly applied by the trial court to bar the plaintiffs section 414 claim.
2. Chapter 15 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Monk, and Virgin Islands Law
Chapter 15 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts covers the liability of an employer of an independent contractor for injuries caused to others by the acts or omissions of the contractor. See Restatement div. 2, ch. 15, at 369. The first provision, section 409, recites the general rule of non-liability: “General Principle. Except as stated in sections 410-429, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants.” Restatement § 409. Thus, sections 410 through 415 describe those situations in which an employer may nevertheless be hable for injuries to others caused by the contractor.7
Of these exceptions, the Monk court clearly limited its analysis to the meaning “of ‘others’ under the peculiar risk provisions of Chapter 15 of the Restatement.” Monk, 53 F.3d at 1393 (emphasis added). As the court stated, its “holding extends to actions under the direct liability provisions of section 413, as well as the vicarious liability provisions of sections 416 and 427” dealing with the doctrine of peculiar risk. Monk, 53 F.3d at 1394. Thus, it is clear that Monk did not extend to section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because that section is not a peculiar risk provision.
In a recent decision, Gass v. Virgin Islands Tel. Corp., 149 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.Vi. 2001),8 the trial division of this court held that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue his employer’s employer under section 414 because Monk “impliedly eliminated the presence or absence of circumstances of peculiar risk as a factor to be considered”. Id. at 220 (emphasis added). We are unpersuaded by this reasoning and find it to be an insufficient basis for rejecting what we find to be settled law in this jurisdiction — namely, that one who undertakes to perform an affirmative duty will be liable for his own negligence.9
[638]*638Monk’s holding was specifically limited to the peculiar risk provisions of Chapter 15 and was heavily influenced by California law. In particular, the California Supreme Court decision Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721 (1993), was heavily relied upon. That case held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under either version of the peculiar risk doctrine, that is, under either section 413 or section 416. Privette, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721 (1993); see also Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 253, 264 n. 2, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504 (1998); Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.4th 1235, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096 (2001) (applying the peculiar risk analysis of Privette to section 410, negligent hiring, and holding hirer not hable for the negligent performance of a hired contractor for injuries to the contractor’s employees). When considering a hirer’s liability under the peculiar risk provisions, the courts consistently distinguished the issue before them from the tort theory set forth in section 414. Toland, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d at 511 n. 2 (holding that the “grant of review did not extend to and therefore we do not decide ... whether Privette ... would preclude an employee of an independent contractor from seeking tort recovery from workplace injuries under the theory of section 414”); Camargo, 25 Cal.4th at 1245, n. 2,108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096 (concluding that the consideration of section 410 should “not be read as having prejudged” application to section 414). As the California Supreme Court explained, Privette’s conclusion simply does not extend to section 414.10 Hooker v. Dept. of Trans., 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (2002).
Hence, there is simply no basis in law, to hold that one who hires an independent contractor cannot be held hable for his own negligence outside of the ‘peculiar risk’ arena. To the contrary, common law principles of negligence allow injured parties to recover against anyone who fails to carry out their affirmative duties with due care. This court declines to follow Gass, and to undertake such a sweeping change in the tort law of this jurisdiction, especially in light of the local law, which allows an injured employee to sue any person reasonably responsible for his injuries.11 Accordingly, as to its analysis and reasoning relating to section 414, Gass is rejected.
While there may be some temptation to follow Gass, and extend Monk to ah of the provisions of Chapter 15, there are valid [639]*639reasons for not extending Monk’s holding beyond those cases involving a peculiar risk. In discussing Chapter 15 of Restatement, the Monk court could have provided that an employee of an independent contractor could never sue an employer of the independent contractor thereunder. The Monk court did not; rather, it carefully framed its entire discussion around the ‘peculiar risk’ provisions.12 In addition, the ‘four fundamental reasons’ cited by the Monk court all relate to, or refer to, the doctrine of peculiar risk.13
Thus, in Carty v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation, 42 V.I. 125, 78 F.Supp.2d 417 (D.V.I.1999), this court held that section 414 imposes a duty on the employer where the claim involves an employee of an independent contractor. Id. at 420. In so ruling, the court confirmed that Monk does not apply to section 414, but is limited to the peculiar risk provisions of Chapter 15.14 Significantly, that holding is consistent with our holding today.
The doctrine of peculiar risk is premised on the broader rule of vicarious liability. The doctrine was meant to ensure that, when a landowner hired an independent contractor to do dangerous work, people who were injured would not have to depend on the contractor’s solvency in order to receive compensation. See Hooker, 27 Cal.4th at 204, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081; see also Privette, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d at 724-25. Today, those injuries would be the subject of worker’s compensation law whenever the injured person is an employee of the tort-feasor, so one could conclude that the solvency issue has been resolved in those cases.
It is in this sense that the peculiar risk provisions provide for derivative liability for a hirer of an independent contractor— that is, liability for another’s negligence. This is true even with respect to section 413, which appears to provide for direct liability.15 Courts have explained that the [640]*640conclusion that peculiar risk is rooted in vicarious liability “is unaffected by the characterization of the doctrine as ‘direct’ liability.” Toland, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d at 510 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, although Monk purports to consider direct liability, it really only precludes liability based on the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in section 413 and 416.16
Peculiar risk analysis is conceptually distinct from traditional negligence analysis: while negligence and section 414 involve a failure to act with reasonable care, peculiar risk liability functions more as a strict liability principle resulting from a variety of policy considerations. Peculiar risk doctrine provides for liability even when a defendant is not personally negligent and does not cause an injury. Rather, the defendant’s liability is derivative or vicarious of the acts of another, and is not related to any duty of his own. Thus, the doctrine allows courts to impose liability on landowners even when they utilized independent contractors to perform dangerous work and denied that one could limit their own liability by shifting the duty of care to another. In this way, the peculiar risk doctrine has helped to ensure that persons who were injured by dangerous actives have recourse, in the event that the independent contractor is insolvent. See Monk, 53 F.3d at 1390. Thus, in a sense, the courts have determined that landowners should be liable, even if the person who was actually negligent was beyond their control, ie. an independent contractor; and, this is why the peculiar risk provisions, set forth in the Restatement, are utterly distinguishable from section 414.
In contrast, the section relied upon by Appellant does not depend on the conduct of the independent contractor. Section 414 provides for liability for an employer’s own negligence where he retains sufficient control over the operative details of the work. Therefore, Monk’s prohibition does not apply to section 414 cases, and the considerations underlying Monk do not affect liability arising under that section because such negligence is based on the hirer’s own failure to exercise reasonable care in his retained control duty that forms the basis of liability. Thus, when considering section 414, a court need not consider whether it is better policy to charge the hirer with another’s negligence, holding him responsible for the contractor’s failures, because, in the case of section 414 liability, the hirer is actually negligent. Hooker, 27 Cal.4th at 211-13, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (liability is not [641]*641derivative where hirer contributes to injuries, liability is warranted).
Simply stated, the direct liability of section 414 does not result from the same sort of policy considerations underlying peculiar risk liability, i.e. ensuring that those injured by dangerous activities had recourse. Because the peculiar risk provisions are “in essence vicarious,” Toland, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d at 511, in that, they are rooted in and reflect, historical considerations, Monk does not bar forms of direct liability that are not premised on those same considerations and, which, by definition, are not derivative of the independent contractor’s negligence. Villafana, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 170 (2001).
Significantly, when taken together with workmen’s compensation law, the application of the peculiar risk doctrine “produces the anomalous result that a nonnegligent person’s liability for an injury is greater than that of the person whose negligence actually caused the injury.” Privette, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d at 728. It was largely in response to this perceived inequity that the courts have attempted to extend workmen’s compensation immunity to the employer’s employer; noting, that it was the employer’s employer who was probably paying for the workmen’s compensation insurance. Even the Special Note, cited by the Monk court,17 rests squarely on the conclusion that workers’ compensation laws, which protect the independent contractor from suit by his employees, should likewise protect the independent contractor’s employer since that party is indirectly bearing the cost of the insurance premiums. Monk, at 1390-1391.
While intuitively this reasoning is persuasive, it cannot be reconciled with current Virgin Islands law. Unlike many jurisdictions, where these “equity” considerations may be controlling, the statutory law and public policy of this jurisdiction compel a different result.18 Therefore, we cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature and apply the “equity” considerations set forth in Monk, which are the only justifications for extending this sort of immunity beyond the peculiar risk provisions to which they are more directly applicable.
The Legislature of the Virgin Islands has rejected this very ‘equity’ argument. The Legislature has expressly and extensively considered whether an employer’s employer could be liable to a subcontractor’s employees and have said yes. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the primary employer is in a sense immune from suit because of workers’ compensation policy.
At one time, courts in this jurisdiction held that the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy also prohibited suit against a secondary employer. See Vanterpool v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 766 F.2d 117 (3d Cir.1985), cert. den. 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S.Ct. 801, 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986). The Legislature of the Virgin Islands, which already allowed an injured [642]*642worker to sue any third person, other than his employer, responsible for his injuries (24 V.I.C. § 263), reacted promptly to the District Court’s ruling in Vanterpool, adding a new section to Title 24 of the Virgin Islands Code providing:
It shall not be a defense to any action brought by or on behalf of an employee, that the employee at the time of his injury or death, was the borrowed, loaned, or rented employee of another employer. Any oral or written agreement between an employer and an employee which makes the employee the borrowed, loaned or rented employee of another employer shall be null and void as being against the public policy of this Territory.
24 V.I.C § 263a. This section worked to abolish the borrowed servant doctrine in the Virgin Islands, and clarified that a secondary employer is not immune from suit simply because the primary employer is protected under workmen’s compensation.
To further bolster its position, the Legislature subsequently amended the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statute adding a new subsection that provides on its face for the relationship between a subcontractor’s employees and the subcontractor’s hirer:
For purposes of this section, a contractor shall be deemed the employer of a subcontractor’s employees only if the subcontractor fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter with respect to being an insured employer. The “statutory employer and borrowed servant” doctrine are not recognized in this jurisdiction, and an injured employee may sue any person responsible for his injuries other than the employer named in a certificate of insurance issued under section 272 of this title.
24 V.I.C. § 284(b) (emphasis added). Under this new subdivision (b) of section 284, it is clear that an employee of a subcontractor can sue the subcontractor’s employer unless the subcontractor is not, itself, insured. The amendment is not limited to those cases involving borrowed employees; rather, it clearly addresses “contractors” and “subcontractor’s employees” and denies the hirer of an independent contractor immunity from suit where the subcontractor is insured for workmen’s compensation.19
If there were any doubt as to the purpose of the amendment, the Official Note attached to the bill removed such doubt entirely. The explanation attached to the bill provided in relevant part that:
This bill is needed to assist person [sic ] who are injured while on the job .... This need arises because the courts have been interpreting Section 284 of Title 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to grant immunity not only to a worker’s immediate employer, but also to secondary employers although the Legislature never intended immunity for these secondary wrongdoers.
Take a situation where a [contractor’s] employee is injured at Hess. Under the present law, the Courts say our Legislature intended not only to grant immuni[643]*643ty to the injured worker’s employer [ ], but also to Hess. The Bill would avoid that.... [I]f the [contractor’s] employee is badly hurt as a result of the negligence of Hess, and the employee has collected ... workmen’s compensation benefits, [ ] he can sue Hess.
Bill No. 498, 16th Legislature (1986) (attached explanation) (emphasis added). This is a clear statement of the public policy of the Virgin Islands. It permits an injured employee to sue the hirer of his employer without any limitation or defense even where the employee was merely an indirect employee of his employer’s hirer, and even though the hirer may ultimately bear the costs of his workers’ compensation insurance premium.20
Only the employer actually named in the workers’ compensation certificate is protected from suit and the “injured employee may sue any other person responsible for his injuries.” 24 V.I.C. § 284(b) (emphasis added). There is nothing to indicate that the words “sue any other person responsible” in section 284(b) exclude employers of independent contractors. To the contrary, the limitation to those “named in the certificate” is a clear statement that there is no such limitation with respect to those not listed, ie. employers of independent contractors, statutory employers, borrowed employers, or employers of a rented employee of another employer. See 24 V.I.C. §§ 268a & 284(b). These legislative enactments comprise local laws, which preclude reliance on the Restatement’s unadopted special note or other interpretations to the contrary. 1 V.I.C. § 4. Interestingly, this is precisely the sort of conflict with local workers’ compensation law anticipated by the American Law Institute when it rejected the Special Note to the tentative draft of the Restatement.
Thus, an injured employee of an independent contractor may sue the employer of the independent contractor under the provisions of section 414, if that employer is not named in the worker’s compensation certificate, and that person’s negligent conduct caused the employee’s injuries. 24 V.I.C. §§ 263 & 284(b). We must therefore conclude that an injured employee may sue anyone other than his employer whose conduct caused his injuries.21
Accordingly, Appellant may sue HOVIC under section 414 for HOVIC’s liability for its own negligence in performing any of the duties retained by HOVIC.22 See Carty, 78 F.Supp.2d at 420, n. 9. Because Monk did not address section 414, it is not dispositive and does not bar Appellant’s claim based thereon. Further, to the extent that the unadopted Special Note to the Restatement is interpreted in such a way as to render it inconsistent with the law of this jurisdiction, it does not control. Therefore, the trial court erred in its dis[644]*644missal of the plaintiffs section 414 claim in reliance on Monk.
3. Retained Control.
The Restatement provides that one who retains control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for harm that is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414. Although the trial court rejected liability based on section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, it nevertheless made findings concerning HOVIC’s level of retained control to determine if such control subjected HOVIC to liability to the plaintiff. The court concluded that it did not, and in so doing, erred.
Control is not predicated upon the day-to-day activities of a general overseer. It involves a more intricate involvement in the work to be done and may be established by showing that the employer retained a degree of control over the manner in which the work is to be done.23 In Hood v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 650 F.Supp. 678 (D.Vi.1986), the court applied that measure of control test where HOVIC retained control over safety aspects of the job. The court found that HOVIC should be responsible for any harmful consequences that result from its negligent exercise of that control. Hood, 650 F.Supp. at 680. The court also acknowledged that although “control is a factual issue to be resolved by the jury ... [it] must grant summary judgment in favor of HOVIC... if [the plaintiff] fails to produce evidence creating a genuine issue for trial.” Id. Therefore, where an employer assumes affirmative duties, directs the method of performance of those duties, or offers specific instruction regarding the manner of performance, he may be hable when he exercises that control without due care. See id.; see also Hooker v. Dept. of Trans., 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (2002); Moloso v. Alaska, 644 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1982).
To determine whether there was sufficient control to subject HOVIC to liability, both the contract and any affirmative exercise of control are relevant. Here, HOVIC retained more than a mere cursory level of control in the manner in which United Ogden conducted business. The evidence presented at trial showed that HOVIC expressly assumed affirmative duties with respect to safety in the workplace, and thereby retained sufficient control to be held liable when it failed to perform those duties with care. See Hooker v. Dept. of Trans.; see also Moloso, 644 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1982).
HOVIC provided and supplied the salad bars to be used by United Ogden. HOVIC repaired the floor and installed the defective drains and draining devices. HOVIC installed the white floor tiles that were indistinguishable from clear water. In other words, Plaintiff contends that HOV-IC provided an unsafe work place, the cafeteria. Since United Ogden could only use the equipment and facilities provided by HOVIC, HOVIC thereby controlled the manner in which United Ogden carried out its obligations under the contract and, to the extent that it failed to do so with care, may have affirmatively contributed to the plaintiffs injuries.
[645]*645Additionally, HOVIC employed safety experts, conducted walk-throughs, and created a Safety and Health Policy that set forth a detailed description of HOVIC’s affirmative duties. The policy expressly provided that HOVIC would monitor for compliance with the policy and “shall in all aspects of operations provide a safe and healthy working environment for its employees, contractors, and customers [.]” (J.A. Vol. II at 536 (emphasis added).) Clearly, this evidences supervisory “control” over the manner in which United Ogden did its work, being far in excess of what one would ordinarily exercise over an independent contractor. Therefore, pursuant to the Restatement, HOVIC must exercise those duties with care.
The issue of the degree of retained control is one of fact. Many factors may be relevant, and therefore the issue is best left to a jury. Where Appellant provided enough evidence to support the genuine issue of control over United Ogden by HOVIC, judgment as a matter of law is improper. Hence, this case will be remanded to the trial court for further determinations consistent with this holding.
C. Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A.
The trial court also rejected Figueroa’s argument that HOVIC is subject to liability for her injuries in its capacity as a “possessor of land.” In rejecting Figueroa’s claim, the court indicated that Restatement sections 343 and 343A impose liability “if, but only if’ a possessor of land has knowledge of, or has discovered, a dangerous condition. The court found that “there was no evidence ... indicating knowledge or discovery of the condition by the defendant.” (J.A. Vol. I. at 20.)
Section 343 of the Restatement subjects a possessor of land to liability for known or discoverable dangers when he realizes, or should realize, that the danger presents an unreasonable risk of harm, and when he should expect that his invitees will not realize that danger, or that they will fail to protect themselves. Knowledge of a danger may be either actual or constructive, and the issue of whether a danger is ‘known’ is a question of fact. Jackson v. Topa Equities, 41 V.I. 338, 393,1999 WL 641430 (D.V.I.1999). In this case, the trial court found that there was no evidence of actual knowledge on the part of HOVIC. However, because the trial court did not consider whether HOVIC had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, that is, whether it should have known, its section 343 analysis was incomplete.
Further, although it is sometimes a defense that the invitee also knew of the danger, that does not necessarily cut-off liability in this case. While one is not ordinarily liable for obvious dangers on his land, he remains liable where an invitee does not fully appreciate the threat and gravity of the danger or when the possessor can anticipate that the invitee will be harmed despite the obviousness of the danger. Restatement 343A. This is because invitees, such as a contractor’s employees, have the right to be protected, even against ‘known or obvious’ dangers when harm should have been anticipated. Jackson v. Topa Equities Ltd., 41 V.I. 338, 1999 WL 641430 (D.V.I.1999). Sections 343 and 343A clearly charge HOVIC with the responsibility of knowing of the potential risks to invitees on its land especially those created by its equipment.
In this case, Ms. Mackay, a safety expert, testified that HOVIC should have provided a safer set-up for the salad bar area. She indicated that the salad carts and hoses should have been secured. Of the three salad bars, only one had a hose that was firmly attached to the drain in the [646]*646floor. (J.A. Vol. I at 197.) This testimony was corroborated by Doreen Barnes, who indicated that the smaller salad bar had a sealed-in hose. (J.A. Vol. I at 197-198.)
Further, the testimony indicated that the salad bars moved with a mere bump to the cart. When bumped, the hose would come out of the six-inch drain and water would spill on the floor unnoticed. Significantly, the safety expert testified that the contrast of a clear liquid on the light colored or white floor tiles would make it difficult for a person to be aware when the floor is wet. (J.A. Vol. II at 368-873.)
Finally, HOVIC conducted safety walk-throughs and inspections of the premises. These inspections were performed by persons who should have been able to detect the danger of the conditions in the salad bar area. (J.A. Vol. II at 431.) The salad bars themselves were provided by HOVIC. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to suggest that the dangerous conditions were discovered by HOVIC, or that they would have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary diligence. A reasonable jury could have concluded that HOVIC knew of the need to firmly secure the hoses.
Therefore, although one might argue that United Ogden employees could also have known that the salad bar sometimes drained onto the floor, such knowledge does not necessarily cut off HOVIC’s duty to use care to protect them. To the contrary, an invitee enters land upon the “implied representation” that the land is safe, and she may expect care in the inspection of the land. Restatement 343, comment b. Where repairs are required, an invitee may expect that those repairs be done properly. Id. This is particularly true where the possessor has expressly promised to provide a safe work environment. (J.A. Vol. II at 536.)
There was enough evidence from which a jury could find actual or constructive knowledge of the potential for the salad bar to leak and of the need to safely dispose of water from the melted ice. If so, it was up to HOVIC, as possessor, to cure that risk. Where it fails to do so, or where it does so in a manner insufficient to protect an invitee, it may be hable. Accordingly, the trial court improperly denied liability under sections 343 and 343A.
III. CONCLUSION
Where sufficient indicia of control are shown, the issues of control and due care in an action involving injury to an employee of an independent contractor, pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414, are for the fact finder. At trial, the court should have allowed the issue of control by HOVIC over United Ogden, its employees, and the area of the Port-a-Kamp cafeteria to be submitted to the jury. Additionally, Anita Figueroa is not barred from suing HOVIC for her injuries under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A. Accordingly, the Territorial Court’s Judgment as a Matter of Law in favor of HOVIC will be Reversed; and the case Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.