In McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 219, the court upheld a jury verdict finding Wal-Mart partially liable for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor. Wal-Mart had hired the contractor to install sound systems in its stores. The work required the use of forklifts, and Wal-Mart requested that the contractor use Wal-Mart's forklifts in performing the job. As it turned out, the Wal-Mart forklifts were not properly equipped, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court noted: 3 "When a hirer of an independent contractor, by negligently furnishing unsafe equipment to the contractor, affirmatively contributes to the injury of an employee of the contractor, the hirer should be liable to the employee for the consequences of the hirer's own negligence. 'The general supervisory right to control the work so as to insure its satisfactory completion in accordance with the terms of the contract does not make the hirer of the independent contractor liable for the latter's negligent acts in performing the details of the work. . . . An owner is not liable for injuries resulting from defective appliances unless he has supplied them or has the privilege of selecting them or the materials out of which they are made . . . or unless he exercises active control over the men employed or the operations of the equipment used by the independent contractor. . . .' " (McKown, supra, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 225.) In McKown, the court considered "whether, under the decisions in Privette and Toland, an employee of an independent contractor is barred from pursuing a lawsuit against the hirer of the independent contractor on the theory the hirer negligently provided unsafe equipment." ( McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 223.) The court answered that question in the negative and affirmed the decision of the appellate court holding a hirer liable for negligently providing an unsafe forklift for use by an independent contractor on the hirer's premises. The court in McKown summed up by stating: "Imposing tort liability on a hirer of an independent contractor when the hirer's conduct has affirmatively contributed to the injuries of the contractor's employee is consistent with the rationale of our decisions in Privette, Toland and Camargo, because the liability of the hirer in such a case is not in essence vicarious or derivative in the sense that it derives from the act or omission of the hired contractor. . . . For the same reason, when a hirer of an independent contractor, by negligently furnishing unsafe equipment to the contractor, affirmatively contributes to the injury of an employee of the contractor, the hirer should be liable to the employee for the consequences of the hirer's own negligence." ( Id. at p. 225.)