10. In the plaintiff's action for damages against the builder, the plaintiff should

The doctrine of vicarious liability provides that in some situations, the tortious act of one person may be imputed to another because of some special relationship between the two. The latter will be held liable even though his conduct may have been blameless. For example, vicarious liability commonly applies in employer/employee relationships, family relationships, or joint enterprises.

The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor often hinges on whether he is subject to control by the supervising party, meaning whether the supervisor exercises control over the physical details of the work. An independent contractor is generally considered his own boss.

A person who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for the torts of that person. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, there are duties considered to be «non-delegable,» meaning the employer/delegator will be vicariously liable, irrespective of the fact that he hired an independent contractor to perform the work. When the independent contractor is specifically engaged in work that is abnormally dangerous, such as blasting, the employer will be strictly liable, as if he had done the work himself.

B is correct. Although the general rule is that the employer of an independent contractor will not be vicariously liable for the contractor's tortious conduct, this does not apply where there is a non-delegable duty. Abnormally dangerous work is considered non-delegable and will be subject to strict liability. One type of inherently dangerous activity that falls under this category is blasting. Here, the contractor's blasting operations necessary to excavate for the pool triggers strict liability, which imposes liability on the builder for the plaintiff's property damage.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The plaintiff will recover damages from the builder regardless of the degree of control the builder had over the contractor's blasting operations. This issue — the degree of control over a project — normally applies to a determination of whether someone is classified as an employee or independent contractor for purposes of vicarious liability. However, this distinction is irrelevant in cases involving abnormally dangerous work, which triggers vicarious strict liability regardless of whether the worker is an independent contractor or employee. Blasting is so dangerous that courts will not allow the builder to delegate liability for the harm it causes.

C is incorrect. The reasonableness of the contractor's conduct is irrelevant because strict liability applies, which holds actors liable for harm in situations where even reasonable care cannot alleviate all risk of harm. The builder's non-delegable duty to make safe the blasting operations renders him liable for the damage to the plaintiff's property, regardless of whether the contractor acted reasonably.

D is incorrect. As explained above, when strict liability applies, the reasonableness of the actions becomes irrelevant. The builder had a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff because blasting is an inherently dangerous activity, and whether he acted reasonably will not disrupt his liability for the damages.