Foreseeability in WHS Litigation: Was the Risk Reasonably Foreseeable?
Foreseeability is the threshold question in most WHS prosecutions and workers' compensation common law claims. If the risk was reasonably foreseeable, the duty holder needed to control it. If it was not foreseeable, no duty arises. This guide explains how foreseeability is assessed and applied by courts.
Foreseeability as the Threshold for WHS Liability
Before the reasonably practicable analysis begins, the court must be satisfied that the hazard or risk was reasonably foreseeable. This foreseeability threshold operates as a filter: if the risk was not reasonably foreseeable, the duty holder had no obligation to control it. If it was foreseeable, the duty to take reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or minimise it arises.
Foreseeability in WHS law is an objective test. The question is not whether the specific duty holder actually foresaw the risk, but whether a reasonable person in their position, with their industry knowledge and access to available information, would have foreseen it. Actual ignorance of a well-documented risk is not a defence to foreseeability.
The Reasonably Foreseeable Risk Standard
A risk is reasonably foreseeable if a person in the duty holder's position ought reasonably to have foreseen that a failure to address it could result in injury. This does not require the duty holder to have anticipated the precise manner in which the injury occurred. A general awareness that a category of activity could cause a category of harm is sufficient to establish foreseeability.
For example, it is reasonably foreseeable that work at height without edge protection could result in a fall and serious injury, even if the specific sequence of events that caused the actual fall was unexpected. The foreseeability of the general risk category is what matters, not the foreseeability of every detail of the accident sequence.
Courts have found that a risk can be reasonably foreseeable even where its probability is very low. A one-in-a-million chance of occurring does not make a risk unforeseeable if the potential consequences are catastrophic. The severity of potential harm is relevant to whether the risk ought to have been foreseen and addressed.
Industry Knowledge and the Foreseeability Standard
The foreseeability assessment is anchored to what was known or should have been known in the relevant industry at the relevant time. Published codes of practice, Safe Work Australia guidance, industry standards and the general state of knowledge in the industry are all relevant to what a duty holder is taken to have known and therefore to have foreseen.
A duty holder who argues that they did not know a particular hazard existed will face difficulty if that hazard was well documented in industry guidance or codes of practice. Codes of practice are expressly admissible in WHS proceedings as evidence of what is reasonably practicable, and they are similarly relevant to foreseeability.
Past Incidents as Foreseeability Evidence
Prior incidents at the same workplace involving the same or similar hazards are strong evidence of foreseeability. Where a duty holder has experienced near-misses, minor injuries or documented hazard reports relating to the same risk, the argument that the risk was not reasonably foreseeable is very difficult to sustain. Incident reports, hazard registers and maintenance records are all relevant to establishing what the duty holder knew.
Absence of prior incidents is not conclusive evidence that the risk was unforeseeable. Many risks exist for years without incident before a serious injury occurs. The question is whether the risk category was foreseeable from industry knowledge and general workplace safety principles, not whether the duty holder had personally witnessed the hazard materialise.
Expert Witness Analysis of Foreseeability
A WHS expert witness assists the court by explaining whether the risk in question was reasonably foreseeable by reference to industry knowledge, codes of practice and the specific circumstances of the workplace. The expert analysis addresses what was known about the hazard category, what industry guidance was available, and whether a competent WHS practitioner in that industry would have identified and addressed the risk.
Foreseeability analysis is a component of the broader breach analysis and liability assessment. It is also closely connected to the causation analysis: see causation in WHS litigation for how foreseeability and causation interact. The foundational standard is explained in reasonably practicable in WHS law.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Is a one-in-a-million risk foreseeable?
Yes, in many circumstances. Foreseeability does not require a high probability of occurrence. Where the potential consequence of a low-probability risk is death or catastrophic injury, courts have found the risk to be reasonably foreseeable and the duty to control it to be engaged. The combination of probability and severity determines whether the risk ought to have been foreseen and addressed.
-
Does the duty holder need actual knowledge of the risk?
No. Foreseeability is an objective test. The question is what a reasonable person in the duty holder's position, with access to the same industry information and general knowledge, would have foreseen. A duty holder who claims not to have known about a well-documented hazard will not succeed on foreseeability grounds if that hazard was known in the industry.
-
How do codes of practice affect foreseeability?
Codes of practice are expressly admissible in WHS proceedings and are highly relevant to foreseeability. Where a code of practice identifies a hazard and describes controls for it, this is evidence that the hazard was known in the industry and that a competent duty holder ought to have been aware of it. Failure to follow a code of practice makes it very difficult to argue that the risk was not foreseeable.