. Redford had been a backhoe operator for fi ve years. Although he had worked for other sign companies, he had spent 90 percent of his time during the past three years working for Tube Art Display, Inc. Redford generally dug holes exactly as directed by the sign company employing him. He did, however, pay his own business taxes, and he did not participate in any of the fringe benefi ts available to Tube Art employees. Tube Art obtained a permit to install a sign in the parking lot of a combination commercial and apartment building. Telling Redford how to proceed, Tube Art’s service manager laid out the exact location of a 4 × 4 foot square on the asphalt surface with yellow paint and directed that the hole be 6 feet deep. AfterRedford began the job, he negligently struck a small natural gas pipeline with the backhoe. He examined the pipe, and, fi nding no indication of a leak or break, concluded that the line was not in use and left the worksite. Later, an explosion and fi re occurred in the building serviced by the line. As a result, a business owned by Massey was destroyed. Massey sued Tube Art for Redford’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Did Massey recover?