Is Alan liable for arson? Arson at common law was the maliciousburning of the dwelling of another. Modernly has been extended to include any protected structure. The malice necessary for arson requires the intent to burn the dwelling of another or any protected structure.
Here, Alan intended to burn the school athletic shed, because he decided to do so and went to the school with paper matches trying to light them up. Alan will argue that he was unable to set a fire and he left the school without making any fire. However, Alan used Brian’s lighter and was able to get the shed to smolder. There was a burning, because two hours later the winds caused the remaining sparks to burst into flames destroying the shed. The burning element for arson does not need to be extensive, slight ignition will suffice. There was an ignition, as the winds picked up sparks that can not be without ignition. Alan will argue that the winds were an intervening cause that is the actual causation of the fire, not the sparks he left. However, for an intervening cause to break the chain of events and limit the liability of the defendant has to be independent and apart from the defendant’s action and unforeseeable by the defendant. The winds picking up the sparks is a dependant to Alan’s action of smoldering the shed. It is also foreseeable that if you leave a smolder in a shed that will cause a fire if an object falls in the smolder or as in this case winds pick up the sparks from it. Thus the result from the winds is foreseeable and that will not cut off Alan’s liability for the fire.
Therefore, Alan is liable for arson of the shed.
