Empress Car Company [1998]

1. Facts:

• Oil leaked into a river after a trespasser turned on an unattended oil tap.

• The tap had no lock, which allowed the trespasser to access it easily.

• The company was held liable for the environmental damage caused by the oil spill.

2. Outcome:

• Lord Hoffmann ruled that for an intervening act to break the chain of causation, it must be deemed "abnormal and extraordinary."

• The court found that vandalism was foreseeable due to the lack of a lock on the tap.

• The company was held liable for the environmental damage.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Causation: Empress Car Company established that foreseeability of an intervening act plays a crucial role in determining liability. If the intervening act (vandalism) is foreseeable due to inadequate precautions, it does not break the chain of causation.

• Common Sense: The decision emphasised the use of "common sense" to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary events. A foreseeable act, even if carried out by a third party, does not necessarily absolve the original defendant of liability.

• Comparison with Kennedy: In contrast to Empress, Kennedy [2007] focused on foreseeability in the context of whether the defendant’s actions directly led to the victim’s death. Empress involved an independent, unforeseeable act, whereas Kennedy dealt with an act (self-injection) that was foreseeable.

• Modern Perspective: Empress Car Company might be overturned today, as its approach to foreseeability and intervening acts has been questioned. The decision in Kennedy implied a shift towards a more nuanced understanding of foreseeability and causation, highlighting that the principles established in Empress may no longer align with contemporary views on criminal liability.