Skip to main content
5 of 13
edited tags
user avatar
user avatar

Even if the 5th party is suing the 4th, wouldn't 4th and 5th parties' arguments that 3rd party broke the chain of causation be identical?

Consider this hypothetical. I am uncertain if I worded the title accurately. Do not hesitate to edit, improve the title and this post.

D1 (Defendant 1) accidentally injures P. P falls to the pavement, and bleeds. D1 panics, and runs away.

Soon D2 discovers P, still unconscious. While lifting and carrying P D2's car, D2 drops P, compounding P’s injuries. Then D2 drives P to a hospital’s emergency department ("ED").

P is trolleyed to a ward. But merely one doctor is staffing the ED: D3. P wakes up for a while, but lapses back into unconsciousness. D3 forgets P. After 9 hours of waiting without treatment or intervention, P dies.

Discuss merely all parties’ tortious liability. Ignore — do NOT discuss — damages.

D2 shall try to argue that D1 broke the chain of causation.

D3 shall try to argue that D1 and D2 broke the chain of causation. Obviously D3's argument differs from D2's — because 2 potential intervening acts antedated D3, but only 1 potential intervening act antedated D2.

But wouldn't D2's argument that D1 broke the chain of causation, be the exact same as D3's argument that D1 broke the chain of causation? If not, why not?

In other words, imagine that D3 wrote his Statement of Defence before D2. After deleting all of D3's paragraphs on D2 and changing D3 to D2, can't D2 just copy and paste D3's Statement of Defence?