Medical jurisprudence: practice question

A Forensic Medicine question in the style of the NEET PG paper. Answer it first, then read why the right option is right and why each of the others is wrong.

Try it

Forensic Medicine · Medical jurisprudence

Sample item

A surgical swab is found inside a patient's abdomen after an operation. The legal doctrine invoked, suggesting that negligence is evident without further proof, is:

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

C. Res ipsa loquitur

Res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. It applies when the injury would not ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrument was under the defendant's control, and the patient did not contribute, so the burden shifts to the doctor to explain. A retained swab or instrument is a classic example.

Option by option

  • A. Novus actus interveniens

    Novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

  • B. Volenti non fit injuria

    Volenti non fit injuria means voluntary assumption of risk, which is a defence.

  • C. Res ipsa loquitur (correct)

    Correct. The retained foreign body is itself evidence of negligence.

  • D. Respondeat superior

    Respondeat superior makes an employer liable for an employee's act.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

More Forensic Medicine questions

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is C, Res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself.

Why is "Novus actus interveniens" not the answer?

Novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

Why is "Volenti non fit injuria" not the answer?

Volenti non fit injuria means voluntary assumption of risk, which is a defence.

Why is "Respondeat superior" not the answer?

Respondeat superior makes an employer liable for an employee's act.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Medical jurisprudence in Forensic Medicine. It applies when the injury would not ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrument was under the defendant's control, and the patient did not contribute, so the burden shifts to the doctor to explain. A retained swab or instrument is a classic example.

How hard is this question?

We tag it as an application question: it asks you to use a fact on a patient or a finding. The tag is our own editorial judgement, not an official difficulty rating, so read the reason for every option, not only the answer.

How should I study Medical jurisprudence?

Learn postmortem changes with their timelines, and toxicology as poison, sign, test and antidote. Then use the flashcards and the other Forensic Medicine questions on this site to test what stuck.

Is this a real NEET PG question?

No. It is an original practice item (editorial status: sample, version 1). NextPrep does not publish recalled or leaked questions, and independent faculty review of this item has not been completed yet, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.