The trial court prejudicially erred in denying defendant’s request for jury instructions on Privette and its exceptions. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether the Hooker exception applied in this case due to defendant’s retaining control over some aspects of plant safety for some period of time before the accident which killed the worker whose heirs brought this action. Defendant was an indirect owner of a 50% interest in the corporation that owned the electricity generating facility where the accident occurred. That owner corporation hired the corporation that operated the facility and conducted the operations that led to the accident. But for the possibility of Hooker liability for retained control, defendant would be entitled to Privette immunity)