concurring:
I concur in the result reached in the majority, but write to express a single disagreement. I agree with the majority that PECO, as a supplier of high voltage electrical power, had a duty to warn the independent contractor (Scholl) and its employees of the location of the underground high tension power line, and therefore was not insulated from liability as a matter of law. Densler v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 235 Pa.Super. 585, 345 A.2d 758 (1975). However, I depart from the majority in its proposal that appellant’s case against PECO should have been placed before a jury on the theories explained in Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 416 and 427. These sections are set forth in the Restatement (Second) under Topic 2, Harm Caused by Negligence of A Carefully Selected Independent Contractor. The Introductory Note to Topic 2 states:
The rules stated in the following §§ 416-429, unlike those stated in the preceding §§ 410-415, do not rest upon any personal negligence of the employer. They are rules of vicarious liability, making the employer liable for the negligence of the independent contractor, irrespective of whether the employer has himself been at fault. They arise in situations in which, for reasons of policy, the employer is not permitted to shift the responsibility for the proper conduct of the work to the contractor. The liability imposed is closely analogous to that of a master for the negligence of his servant.
*301The case at bar is not a case of vicarious liability, which would cause PECO to be liable for the negligence of Scholl; instead, as the majority acknowledges in its opinion, PECO itself may be found liable for its failure to warn Scholl or its employees of the highly dangerous condition of the job situs. Such potential liability is PECO’s liability, and would not have been activated by any negligence of Scholl. Moreover, I believe that §§ 416 and 427 were intended to provide a basis for recovery by third persons (“others”), not for employees of independent contractors or sub-contractors. The policy reasons do not extend to such employees.
As for the liability of the additional defendant, Scholl, we agree with the majority that Scholl is immune from an action at common law because Scholl was appellant’s statutory employer.