Ignoring negligence and nuisance, what tort would Mountain Fun sue Orbis Adventures for? Would the tort claim against Orbis Adventures be successful?

Recently, there was an issue involving two adjacent Grouse Mountain trails in North Vancouver. The two trails are called the Grouse Grind and the BCMC trail. The Grouse Grind is owned and operated by Orbis Adventures Inc. whereas the BCMC is a trail owned and operated by a company called Mountain Fun Inc. Unfortunately, the Grouse Grind and the BCMC were directly next to each other, which often caused problems for the two companies. Earlier this year, Orbis decided that it wanted to install a steep slide down the mountain to help people get from the top of the Grouse Grind to the bottom much faster. The company brought in some heavy equipment and gradually began shifting some of the ground into large piles half-way down the trail and also stacked metal slide pieces by the piles. The plan was to then remove the soil and start the slide install. Unfortunately for everyone involved, some new rain caused the uninstalled slide pieces to become loose and slide down from Grouse Grind and right onto the BCMC. As a result of the mud and slide pieces on its trail, the BCMC had to be shut down for a month causing it to lose out of about $50,000 in parking revenues.

1. Ignoring negligence and nuisance, what tort would Mountain Fun sue Orbis Adventures for? Would the tort claim against Orbis Adventures be successful? Explain and apply the specific legal test to determine if the claim would be successful. (4 marks)
2. What concept would allow one person to be legally responsible for the actions of another?