True, it's not a perfect analogy, I missed the unpredictability factor.

But you understood what I was trying to say, so for what it's worth, it served it's purpose.

It doesn't seem clear how a company can have liability to have 'safe shelter' from tornados in a warehouse.

Can you explain?

Sure, I'll simplify it:

1. company pays workers to work in warehouse

2. tornado warnings happen

3. company doesn't warn workers in warehouse

4. warehouse in a country where tornadoes happen often doesn't have a tornado shelter

5. tornado kills workers

I hope this makes it more clear! Feel free to ask if things are still confusing.

Can you cite the law that says or implies this must be provided for tornado prone areas?

As far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada it's legally considered an act of god, a natural disaster, etc...

No, I cannot.

I am not a lawyer, I don't consider this particular question (whether it's legal to kill your workers or not) relevant to the question of whether they're responsible for their death (they are), and I don't consider lawmakers as the ultimate authority of ethics.

> The definition of manslaughter depends on the juridistiction, but I think this is clearly a case gross negligence manslaughter, by Amazon.

This does not seem to square with your prior comment.

By the quote you posted, I was trying to imply that I'm speaking outside of any particular framework of law, but rather of ethics. Perhaps I shouldn't have chosen the term used in law, but I didn't know what other term to choose.

Law comes from ethics, anyway. It's an imperfect reflection of the ideal of justice, and in this case, it is my personal opinion that what Amazon did should be considered gross negligence manslaughter.

In any case, they literally killed people.

To be frank, it's difficult to believe 'gross negligence manslaughter' is the default term you normally use in lieu of other choices. Or that you were unable to think of other terms.