Probably be two separate claims, I would have thought.

I would ensure there is a case to be had on both parts before putting in claims against either of them. If there is then I would be under the assumption you would go for both separately, I don't think they would conspire together.

The injury was/is significant. A child with disabilities who had a Care Plan at school which the school ignored. The injury led to Osteomilitis, hospitalisation, surgery where the wound was cleaned out, almost down to the bone, a long period of time off school with twicw daily visits from hospital nurses to give anti biotic through a long line etc. she is still under the hospital now, some 21 months after the event.

Agreed, we could argue the toss all day but in the end the legal fraternity and possibly the insurance companies will decide if there is a legitimate claim by one or both parties and how they will proceed.

Hi Fire safety You might like to check any good tort text book. Have a look at Robinson v Post Office [1974] ROBINSON V POST OFFICE [1974] 1 WLR 1176 FACTS: The plaintiff slipped at work, due to the defendant's negligence, and suffered a minor injury to his leg. The plaintiff went to hospital and was given an anti-tetanus injection and then he suffered a severe allergic reaction to the injection. ISSUE: Was the second injury too remote? HELD: The defendant was liable for both injuries. It was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would require medical treatment as a result of the original injury and therefore, the defendant was liable for the consequences of the treatment, despite the reaction being unforeseeably severe. BUT there is also a concept called Novus actus interveniens ie a tortious action which intervenes and breaks or may break the chain of causation thus between the two torts [negligence in this case]: From Hell v Rankin [2000] "if no additional damage is caused by the second tort, only the first defendant will be liable to compensate for all the loss and damage flowing from the first tort"; but "if additional damage is caused by the second tort, the liability to pay for the cumulative loss and damage is shared between the parties on a pro rata basis. The first defendant remains liable to pay for the loss and damage directly flowing from the breach of the duty, ignoring the second tort. The second defendant pays only for the additional loss and damage flowing from the second tort. The claimant therefore receives full compensation but divided between the defendants in the proportions that the court assesses." OK? Regards Mike PS This is a quick flick-more details if you want or just go on Google/BAIILI

Mike Thank you, that is excellent information. Just why I asked on here because there is usually someone who has an answer without looking through the question. For information the solicitor has asked who would we like to sue, one or the other and that is why I asked in the first place. You may have guessed by now it is my daughter who has suffered, again.

Solicitor has asked us who to sue, one or the other? Because of the reply from Mike Kelly, thanks again Mike, it looks like we can sue both and let the Judge decide who pays what.

Back to the OP question. Can 2 separate defendants be called under the same civil action? I think not. Which is why the solicitor is asking I guess, but I would have thought he'd be offering opinion based on strength of evidence and likelihood of success.

Sorry I thought the poster in the quote stated 'the girls solicitor employed an expert witness' the expert witness says they were both at fault. Could they not tell him or are we looking at who they will get the most off? The solicitor should be best placed to answer this.

Hi Ron, Yes, you can sue two or more defendants. There are thousands of such cases. The mechanism is to initially sue all and sundry [say ex employers in the case of asbestos or similar] and the process will sort out the final defendants. ie 'Not me guv he/she only worked here for a little while and wasn't exposed, etc, etc'. Cases usually are written up as X v Y and others My favourite examples from way back are WRIGHT v. DUNLOP RUBBER CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [The other being ICI] ; CASSIDY v. SAME 1972 COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) 13 KIR 255 HEARING-DATES: 31 October 1972 31 October 1972 CATCHWORDS: Negligence — Duty of care — Manufacturer — Purchaser’s employees exposed to chemical containing carcinogen — Whether danger foreseeable. This was the bladder cancer case involving beta-naphthylamine and ICI and Dunlop squabbled over who was liable. I seem to remember that liability was shared. More details in Munkman on Employers Liability Regards Mike

I stand corrected. I has understood that these distilled down into separate actions. Ray's reminder on asbestos claims prodded me in the right direction. I wonder where you'd get the money these days to take forward that sort of claim........

When I was self employed I had quite a bad accident falling through scaffolding the main contractor paid 90% of the claim and the other 10% was paid by the company that sub contracted the work to me. Different circumstances but they may well share the total compensation claim.

Not sure how much I can say but they were trained in Adult Care and not Child Care. They took on the care when they should have referred to the department for children's care. A written apology has been received detailing how they were negligent.

You can’t get two lots of compensation for the same thing so you can only sue once. You would be suing for compensation due to the negligence of others (e.g. your financial losses and/or suffering). If the negligence was contributed by two parties then they both would be named in the citation. It would be the pursuers (claimant) to prove negligence or contributory negligence in the case. If would be down to the defender (defendant) to prove otherwise or appropriate the blame onto the other party.

I would look at this from the standpoint of the judge - are the facts so intertwined that it would be a waste of the courts valuable time to hear two cases. Take writs against both and the Judge will decide at the first Case Management meeting to make it one or two cases. The only issue may be that medical negligence issues can be legally aided at least in the investigatory phase. The judge is however the expert in how to proceed so let him choose.

Mike, your package receive this morning, many thanks.