england-and-wales liability tort negligence
Even if Plaintiff sues all 3 Defendants, wouldn&#39;t D1 and D2&#39;s arguments that D3 broke the chain of causation be identical?
<p>I deliberately hedged each defendant's possible negligence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>D<sub>1</sub> (Defendant 1) might've negligently injured  P. P falls to the pavement, and bleeds. D<sub>1</sub> panics, and runs away.   D<sub>1</sub> is a billionaire.</p>
<p>Next, D<sub>2</sub> might've negligently injured  P too. After perhaps negligently injuring P, D<sub>2</sub> drives P to a hospital’s emergency department <strong><code>(&quot;ED&quot;)</code></strong>. D2 is bankrupt. D2's net worth is merely $900.</p>
<p>The ED's lone overworked doctor, D<sub>3</sub>, might've negligently injured P too. 9 hours after being admitted to the ED, P dies.</p>
<p>Discuss merely all parties’ tortious liability. <strong>Ignore — do NOT discuss — damages.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>D<sub>1</sub> shall try to argue that D<sub>2</sub> and  D<sub>3</sub> broke the chain of causation.</p>
<p>D<sub>2</sub> shall try to argue that D<sub>3</sub>  broke the chain of causation.
<strong>Obviously D<sub>1</sub>'s argument differs from D<sub>2</sub>'s</strong>  — because  D<sub>1</sub> antedated 2 potential intervening acts, but D<sub>2</sub> antedated merely 1 potential intervening act.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>But wouldn't D<sub>1</sub>'s argument that D<sub>3</sub> broke the chain of causation, <em><strong>be the  exact same as</strong></em>  D<sub>2</sub>'s argument that D<sub>3</sub> broke the chain of causation? If not, why not?</p>
</li>
<li><p>In other words, imagine that D<sub>1</sub> wrote his Statement of Defence before D<sub>2</sub>. After deleting all of  D<sub>1</sub>'s paragraphs on  D<sub>3</sub> and changing D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub>, can't D<sub>2</sub> just copy and paste D<sub>1</sub>'s Statement of Defence?</p>
</li>
</ol>

<h2>Causation flows forwards in time</h2>
<p>Therefore, D1 can argue it was broken by D2 or D3 and D2 can argue it was broken by D3; all other combinations can’t break causation.</p>
<p>What constitutes breaking causation or <a href="https://hwlebsworth.com.au/clinical-negligence-novus-actus-interveniens/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">novus actus interveniens</a>?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australian Courts have consistently held that to establish a novus actus interveniens capable of severing the chain of causation, the original tortfeasor must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the subsequent treatment was “grossly negligent”, and therefore not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the original injury. A mere error or lapse of judgment will not possess enough “causal potency” to amount to an intervening act capable of breaking the chain of causation.</p>
<p>Australian authorities suggest that medical treatment which is unforeseeable is treatment that is “inexcusably bad”, “completely outside the bounds of what any other reputable medical practitioner might prescribe”, or “so obviously unnecessary or improper that it is in the nature of a gratuitous aggravation of the injury” or “extravagant from the point of view of medical practice or routine.”
For your example, D2  did not break causation - further injury during transport is not unforeseeable. D3 <em>did</em> break causation - forgetting a patient for 9 hours is “inexcusably bad”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In terms of liability:</p>
<p>D1 <em>might</em> be liable. However, the “accident” must amount to negligence. If D1 did not owe a duty of care or complied with that duty and the injury was due to pure accident, then they are not liable. The breaking of the chain by D3 means they are only liable for the injuries sustained before then. However, many jurisdictions impose a duty to render aid on a person that caused an accident even if they were not negligent in doing so. Whether D1 leaving the scene creates liability or is merely criminal depends on the specifics of such a law.</p>
<p>D2 probably <em>isn’t</em> liable. In the circumstances, dropping P is likely to be considered a pure accident. In any event, D2 is probably protected by Good Samaritan laws.</p>
<p>D3 <em>is</em> liable, unless P’s injuries were already fatal. That is, there was no possible medical intervention that could be done that would change the fatal outcome.</p>
