Jose Vargas and Luis Felipe Villalobos were a two-man team independently contracted to Eves Express, Inc., to drive tractor-trailers. FMI, Inc. is a federally licensed motor carrier that conducts shipping business. FMI’s shipping distribution center is located in San Pedro, California. In 2010, FMI hired Eves Express as a contractor to deliver cargo from California to New Jersey. Vargas and Villalobos were the drivers assigned for the job. On January 10, 2010, during the trip, Vargas was resting in the sleeper berth while Villalobos was driving when Villalobos drifted to sleep at the wheel and rolled the tractor-trailer over, injuring Vargas. In April 2011, Vargas sued FMI, Eves Express, and Villalobos for negligence. Vargas contended that both FMI and Eves Express were under a nondelegable duty to members of the public, including himself because they are were operating a vehicle under a public franchise; the defendants were therefore liable for the negligence of Villalobos in injuring Vargas. Furthermore, Vargas argued that since the FMI and Eves Express were engaged in interstate commerce, they were each vicariously liable for Villalobos’s negligence. Finally, Vargas argued that Eves Express had failed to properly train, monitor, and supervise Villalobos which led to the accident. FMI and Eves Express filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that under California law, all workplace safety responsibilities and tort liabilities are implicitly delegated to an independent contractor; because Vargas was an independent contractor, they did not own Vargas a duty to provide a safe workplace. The court entered summary judgment for FMI and Eves Express and Vargas timely appealed. Consider the California law which implicitly delegates workplace safety responsibilities and tort liabilities from the contracting party to the independent contractor in terms of the WPH framework. Who are the stakeholders of the law and how are they affected by the law? Think beyond the obvious stakeholders such as the independent contractor and think of individuals such as prospective employees. Do you agree with the trial court’s decision? Why or why not? How did the appeals court rule? What was the appeals court’s reasoning?