parties would suffice to prevent the defendant’s liability.” Id. The central holding of Paton is “[wjhether or not the negligence of a third person may or may not amount to such an intervening cause turns on the issue of whether or not some such negligent act was something the original actor had a duty to anticipate.” Paton, 134 Vt. at 601, 370 A.2d at 217. Thus, Paton supports the conclusion that the original actor can be held liable for the harm caused by the negligence of a third party. Moreover, Arms’ suggestion conflicts with well settled principles of tort law. For example, it has long been established that an original actor can be held liable for the criminal acts of third-parties. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 448 (1965); Sabia v. State, 164 Vt. 293, 669 A.2d 1187 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Generally, an actor can be found liable if,
holding that the department of social and rehabilitation services could be held liable for the sexual abuse of the plaintiff by her stepfather holding that the states department of social services and a county prosecutor were in privity and satisfied the identity of the party requirement holding that a grandmother could be held liable for failure to protect her granddaughter from a known risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees