The cause of the fire in the video is clearly incendiary (although not by 921's standard since it was not set under conditions which that person knew the fire should not be set) - but it is not an arson since there is no criminal intent (assuming the fire department had permission and authority to set the fire - and Dan and I have seen cases where they didn't
) It is an intentional and deliberate act directly resulting in a fire event. The consequences are obviously unintended, but that doesn't really change the cause. From a civil litigation standpoint - was the explosion a foreseeable consequence of a reckless act?