I
suppose OR could argue that they were employed to do a job that only needed doing because their employer (Azaka or the Council) requested it, then the job went wrong, so their employer (Azzaka or the Council) should take responsibility, unless any negligence can be proven against OR. Just as I could probably sue my employer if he asked me to lift a heavy object and, in the process, injured myself.
But regardless of any theoretical legal merit, that would be such an obvious flouting of the rules of common sense and decency that OR would never stoop so low. Or would they?
Surely this is a bit like the scenario where we shouldn't 'employ' uninsured cowboy tradesmen to do work on houses/gardens, because, we as their employers, could be liable for any mis-haps. Are OR now adopting the rules of uninsured cowboy tradesmen?
I once employed a respectable, insured, builder, who accidentally dug through a gas mains. His insurer covered the repairs without any hesitation at all.