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