Torts — Negligence — Independent contractor — Safe operation of vehicle — Nondelegable duty — Action arising from incident where a tire from one of defendant’s trailers, which independent contractor was responsible for inspecting and installing after a fire, detached and collided with a vehicle transporting plaintiff — Trial court did not err in finding that defendant did not have a nondelegable duty to ensure that its trailer was properly maintained and operated in a safe condition — Nothing in 49 C.F.R section 396.17 supports contention that a defendant or any other motor carrier who seeks prompt repair work should be held liable for any negligence on the part of an outside repair facility — “Properly lubricated” requirement of 49 C.F.R. section 396.5 does not impose a nondelegable duty on defendant — Simply because a motor carrier must ensure that a vehicle is properly lubricated does not equate to that carrier having a nondelegable duty when repairs done to a vehicle by an outside entity are negligently performed — Likewise, 49 C.F.R. sections 396.25, 396.3, and 396.7 do not impose a nondelegable duty upon motor carriers — To read federal code provisions as plaintiff does would create a blanket liability for motor carriers whenever an accident occurs because of a faulty repair — No authority exists which stands for the proposition that the necessity of having repair work done on equipment translates into a nondelegable duty on motor carrier’s part with respect to the repair work