An employer's own safety or caretaking protocol for an activity can constitute evidence that psychiatric injury to participants was reasonably foreseeable, without the need for separate expert evidence on foreseeability. Where a screening process identifies a participant as unsuitable and the employer fails to respond, this failure is relevant to breach of duty. The foreseeability test for psychiatric injury in the employer-employee context requires only that the risk be 'not far-fetched or fanciful' (per Koehler v Cerebos), not that it be more probable than not, and the 'normal fortitude' test has no role.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.