In the case where Z's activities led to an explosion due to negligence of B, what legal principle applies?

The situation describes a scenario where Z's actions resulted in an explosion due to the negligence of B. In this context, the correct legal principle is absolute liability. This principle applies to cases where an individual or entity is held responsible for damages or injuries regardless of fault or negligence.

In the case of an explosion, particularly if it involves hazardous materials or activities, the law may impose absolute liability to ensure that victims have the ability to recover damages without needing to prove that the responsible party was negligent. This is especially true in industries or activities that carry inherent risks, where safety measures must be strictly adhered to. In such instances, the nature of the activity itself can lead to liability, emphasis not on the negligence of the parties involved, but rather on the occurrence of the harm itself.

While comparative negligence involves the apportionment of fault between parties when more than one party may have contributed to the injury or damage, and vicarious liability holds one party responsible for the negligent actions of another due to their relationship, these concepts do not apply here as firmly as absolute liability. Joint liability would involve two or more parties being equally responsible for damages, which does not align with the specifics of negligence in this case. Therefore, following the circumstances of the explosion caused