Objective and subjective foreseeability of the result – commentary on the judgment of the Supreme Court of 2 April 2025, I KK 410/24

Abstract

This article offers a critical commentary on the Supreme Court’s judgment concerning the limits of criminal liability for result-based offences committed by omission. The author argues that the Court erroneously equated the objective foreseeability of the result with its normative attribution, without verifying the typicality of the causal course. Referring to the distinction between normative and reconstructive personal standards, the author challenges the Supreme Court’s reliance on the “good nurse” model as the sole basis for determining foreseeability. While the defendant’s conduct breached standards of care, the result – namely, the patient jumping out of a moving ambulance and being fatally struck – was highly atypical and if not objectively unforeseeable, then at least unforeseen inculpably. The commentary critiques the expansive use of the normative model and the failure to assess the typicality of the causal chain.