1. Although the damage by fire could not have been reasonably foreseen as a consequence of dropping the plank, the defenders were still liable for the loss of the ship by fire.
What is the difference between this "could not have been + past participial" structure and "could not be + past participial"?
2. For a defendant to be liable for negligence, the court must find the following:
that the defendant health and safety professional owned the plaintiff a duty of care;
that the defendant breached the standard of care required by that duty in the circumstances;
that this breach was a cause of the damage;
(...)
Question: Take a look at the verb tense of the that-clause. Are they referring to facts or principles?
Hint: think about why past tense is used in the that-clause
我的答案：
“Could not have been + past participial” structure implies that the damage could not have been foreseen before its occurrence. The present perfect tense emphasizes that the time of action is the past. On the other hand, the “could not be + past participle” structure emphasizes more on whether or not it could be foreseen rather than the time of action.
1.
could not be foreseen as......是幾乎不可事先看成......的意思 可能性不到10%
could not be reasonably foreseen as......是幾乎不可事先高度地看成......的意思 可能性不到20%
could not have been foreseen 是無法(完成)事先高度地看出......的意思 可能性50%以上 尚未確定而已
