question on who caused and could be charged with a death in a hypothetical case

Question

I'm not sure if this something I saw on a law/medical show at some point, but I have a question about which way the law would swing (note: law, not jury).

Scenario:

Someone goes out and drives recklessly (for whatever reason) and causes an accident (is undeniably the root cause of the accident). As a result of this, a child is a struck and suffers injuries. This injuries might lead to child X's death if not treated. One of the treatments involves a blood transfusion.

Instep X's parents and insist that they are raising the child within the teachings of a Jehovah's Witnesses, and they absolutely refuse to allow the child the blood transfusion. It is made clear to them that without it, the child will die, there is no alternative treatment. Carry on forward, and X unfortunately dies the state, at the parents urging push for a charge of death by reckless driving.

Could the driver attempt a defense that whilst it was their driving that caused the accident, the child would have not died if the parents would have consented to the treatment and so at most they should only be charged with the lesser offense of reckless driving? In this scenario, how does the drivers defense of "well, the death could have been avoided, so I'm not at fault for the death"

For clarity, let's assume any appeal to courts by the doctors to override the parents decision failed, and so the decision to withhold the blood transfusion lays directly with them.

Answer 1

The death was not legally caused by the driver

In new-south-wales the correct charge is Reckless Driving occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, not Reckless Driving occasioning Death.

In criminal offences and torts, a person is responsible for what would reasonably be expected to flow from their act or omission in the normal course of events. If something “breaks the chain of causation”, the person ceases to be liable for the consequences that follow.

In addition to your example, the offender would not be liable if the child suffered further injuries if the ambulance crashed on the way to the hospital or was the victim of medical malpractice. Or, if the victim were instead an adult, the offender would not be liable if they had refused to have their injuries treated at all.