The test for an employer's vicarious liability for the torts of his employees is similar. It is the common law rule. What it comes down to is whether the employer had the right to control the employee not only as to the end product of his labor, but also as to the means by which the employee produced the end product.

Several years ago I represented a temporary help agency. My client continually had problems with the truck drivers it assigned to its clients.
It seems they had trouble misjudging the clearances of underpasses, and wound up ripping the boxes off the back ends of the trucks.

In another instance the driver made a delivery of oil to the wrong address.

In another case the driver as assigned to a limousine service, and drove off with the nozzle of the gas hose still in the car...pulled the hose loose thereby spilling gasoline all over the service area.

In another instance a temp was assigned to work on a moving truck. While he was moving furniture in a woman's house he ripped off a $7,000.00 diamond ring, and at the end of the day disappeared with the truck for parts unknown. They found the truck the next day in Bridgeport, Ct. Our job was to convince the court that this was acceptable conduct. The temp had a prior criminal record, but it is questionable whether my client would have been able to get access to it. Connecticut also has a statutory public policy favoring rehire of released criminals to prevent them from returning to a life of crime. My argument was that my client was in compliance with said public policy.

The client was required to sign the temp's time card at the end of the temporary assignment. I had drafted the time card to be a combination time card and contract. So it also included language contractually binding the client as the party that had the right to control these employees.  The right to control the employee need only to exist...not actually exercised. Needless to say they were not very happy with the above employees, and refused to pay my client's bills.

We began collection cases against all of them. As was expected they all defended and in some cases counter sued for negligence on a theory of my client's vicarious liability for the conduct of the drivers. At trial all we had to do was establish that the clients had the right to control rather than my client...game over...judgment for my client. At best my client was held to be an independent contractor. The only way he could have been liable would be if he had not assigned temps who were properly qualified to do the work. All of the truck drivers were properly licensed. The defendants were more than a little upset when they had to pay my client, as well as claims made against them for the torts of the temps...working under their supervision and control.

Since your clients do not have the right to control you in the performance of the abstract...it is more likely that you would be held to be an independent contractor rather than an employee.