I WAS reading David Bergman's article about sentencing guidelines for corporate manslaughter and deaths at work (HSW February 2009) and noted that courts are advised to consider the foreseeability of the injury. My question is, should it not be the foreseeability of the incident rather than the injury that matters? And at what point would the courts judge the foreseeability to have been predictable and by whom? I see a significant difference between foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable. If the injury was fatal, but the anticipated injury was potentially less than that, say fractures, would that lessen the breach?
展开▼
