Thanatology: chain of causation: 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 · Thanatology: chain of causation

Sample item

A man stabbed in the abdomen survives a laparotomy but dies two weeks later of hospital-acquired septicaemia spread from the wound. On what principle is the assailant still held answerable for the death?

AContributory negligence on the part of the deceasedBNovus actus interveniens by the operating surgeonCAn unbroken chain of causation from the original wound to deathDVicarious liability of the treating hospital

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

The answer and the reasoning

C. An unbroken chain of causation from the original wound to death

A death that follows naturally from an injury, including its usual complications such as sepsis, is legally attributed to the injury. The chain of causation is broken only by a new, independent and unforeseeable act. Record the wound as the underlying cause and the sepsis as the mode.

Option by option

A. Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
Contributory negligence concerns shared fault in civil claims and does not decide causation of the death.
B. Novus actus interveniens by the operating surgeon
A novus actus would have to be independent and unforeseeable, and routine surgery to treat the wound is not.
C. An unbroken chain of causation from the original wound to death (correct)
Correct. Sepsis from the wound is a usual complication, so causation from the stab to death is unbroken.
D. Vicarious liability of the treating hospital
Vicarious liability is an employer's civil liability for staff and does not transfer criminal responsibility here.

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.

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is C, An unbroken chain of causation from the original wound to death. A death that follows naturally from an injury, including its usual complications such as sepsis, is legally attributed to the injury.

Why is "Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased" not the answer?

Contributory negligence concerns shared fault in civil claims and does not decide causation of the death.

Why is "Novus actus interveniens by the operating surgeon" not the answer?

A novus actus would have to be independent and unforeseeable, and routine surgery to treat the wound is not.

Why is "Vicarious liability of the treating hospital" not the answer?

Vicarious liability is an employer's civil liability for staff and does not transfer criminal responsibility here.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Thanatology: chain of causation in Forensic Medicine. The chain of causation is broken only by a new, independent and unforeseeable act. Record the wound as the underlying cause and the sepsis as the mode.

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 Thanatology: chain of causation?

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.