Page:Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC (20-30038) Opinion.pdf/8

 when removing the birds. Because the Casino neither knew nor could have known about either the expiration of the permit or that AWR was short-staffed at the time it hired AWR in January 2017, these facts are inapplicable to the negligent-hiring analysis.

The BBB rating, the certificate of insurance showing an expired policy, and AWR’s lack of equipment together are more than a scintilla of evidence to support a finding that the Casino was negligent in hiring AWR. The evidence is sufficient as to the negligent-hiring claim.

We proceed to the next theory.

B. Operational control

A principal may be liable for the actions of its independent contractor if the principal retains operational control. Coulter, 117 F.3d at 911–12. Determining whether a principal has retained operational control requires “an examination of whether and to what extent the right to control work has been contractually reserved by the principal.” Id. at 912. The supervision and control that is actually exercised by the principal is less important than the right to control that is contractually reserved. Ainsworth v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 829 F.2d 548, 550–51 (5th Cir. 1987). Still, a contractual clause requiring an independent contractor to comply with the principal’s safety rules does not alone signify the principal’s retaining operational control. Davenport v. Amax Nickel, Inc., 569 So. 2d 23, 28 (La. Ct. App. 1990). The fact that a principal “reserves the right to monitor its contractor’s performance[,] … observes the contractor’s activities, … make[s] safety recommendations to the contractor, and is obligated to report continuing unsafe work practices or conditions … does not mean that the principal controls the … contractor’s work.” Coulter, 117 F.3d at 912. When the independent contractor has “responsibility for its own activities, the principal does not retain operational control.” ''Fruge ex rel. Fruge v. Parker Drilling Co.'', 337 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir.