Question

Ryan owns a Christmas tree farm that struggles to compete with the Christmas tree farm on the other end of town. He instructs one of his employees to set a fire at the rival farm, which destroys much of their stock and drives up demand for Ryan's trees. Ryan's employee is arrested for arson, and the rival farm sues for damages.

Is Ryan liable for the tort?

• Yes, Ryan is vicariously liable according to the "zone of risk" test because his employee's actions were foreseeable.

• Yes, Ryan is directly liable for the tort but not for the employee's criminal act of arson.

• Yes, Ryan is directly liable for the tort and for the employee's criminal act of arson.

• No, Ryan is not liable in this case.

Answer 1

Here, option (a) is the correct answer. Ryan in vicariously liable according to the ‘zone of risk’ test as his employee’s actions were foreseeable.

Vicarious liability is a situation in which one party is held responsible partly for the unlawful actions of the third party. Here, the third party would also be held responsible for the act. In the ‘zone of risk’ test, the employer will be within the ‘zone of risk’ for vicarious liability if the employee is were he/she is supposed to be doing the act, what is being done and the incident arose from the employee’s pursuit of employer’s interest. In this case, Ryan compelled the employee for the criminal act of arson, but as it is the employee who did the act, he is the prime convict and directly responsible for the action whereas Ryan will be indirectly responsible for the same.