In amongst the calls for rolling of heads and that Dan should have been standing at doors himself, it is critical to understand, at law, what Dan’s responsibilities really were. The case law is clear a Principal Contractor (aka Dan) is entitled to rely upon the expertise of contractors it engages to undertake specialist work. Brian Allen Fox v Leightons HC – liability for negligence by (contractors) within the area of their responsibility is not borne vicariously by the Principal Contractor” BUT that reliance is tempered by a duty to select contractors with due diligence – Daniel v. Directors, &. of Metropolitan Railway Co UK “there is a right to rely upon things being properly done (by) persons whose duty it is to do things of that nature, and who are selected for the purpose with prudence and care, as being experienced in the matter, and are held responsible for the execution of the work.” The question for the Royal Commission will be not whether the government failed to supervise or prescribe how quarantine was managed but whether the contractor was suitably qualified and experienced to do the work and what enquires were made to confirm that. From what is coming out there might be some heads roll after all.