Andy Roust hired Clear-it, Inc., a demolition company, to level an old building on a busy downtown lot. Clear-it, 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 Clear-it, Inc. Numerous pieces of adjoining property, both real and personal, were severely damaged. Roust claims that the use of an independent contractor such as Clear-it, Inc. has insulated him from liability. Is Roust liable for the acts of the independent contractor? a. No, Roust isn't liable because he didn't know there was any dange b. No, Roust isn't liable because Clear-it was an independent contractor. C. Yes, Roust is liable because of the inherently dangerous nature of the work. d. Yes, Roust is liable because it was his building