Is there a Difference Between an Intervening and Superseding Cause in Legal Negligence?

Even with all the “wordplay” in the legal profession, there is usually always a real difference when different words are used; but here, I can’t find any differences… The words superseding and intervening mean the exact same thing under a negligence claim… when negligence is the underlying cause of action, four elements must be present in order for an injured party to prevail: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages… With the causation element here, the claimant must show that the defendant’s action was a proximate and actual cause of the claimant’s injuries.

The intervening/superseding cause must occur between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s injury… unlike a preceding cause which occurred before defendant’s actions…. But again, all “causal” actions must meet both proximate (reasonably foreseen) causation and actual (but-for) causation…. Therefore, to relieve the defendant of liability, the intervening/superseding cause must be unforeseeable in most cases… Well unless a legal exception also applies of course.