If Ted hires Darren but does not instruct him on how to use equipment, is Ted liable for damages caused by Darren?

In this scenario, Ted's liability for damages caused by Darren hinges on the principle of negligence in supervision. When Ted hired Darren and did not provide instructions on how to properly use the equipment, he failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care that a responsible employer should offer to ensure that a worker is competent to use the equipment safely. This lack of supervision and guidance can be seen as an act of negligence, especially if the equipment poses inherent risks that could lead to harm if misused.

Negligent supervision occurs when an employer does not take the necessary steps to prevent foreseeable harm, given the worker's experience and the potential dangers involved in the task. In this case, if Darren causes damages through improper use of the equipment, Ted could indeed be held liable because his failure to instruct Darren constituted a breach of his duty to ensure safe and competent operation of the tools or machinery involved. By neglecting to provide necessary training, Ted inadvertently created a hazardous situation that resulted in the damages, establishing a clear link between his negligence and the harm that occurred.