Case Notes for Corr v IBC

Case Note: Corr v IBC

1511 words

• Parties

Mr Thomas Corr represented by his dependent widow (Plaintiff) seeking action against IBC Limited (defendant).

• Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Thomas Corr was an engineer employed by IBC vehicles Limited. Thomas who was 31 years of age at the time was working on a machine, when it threw a metal plate towards him without warning. It hit the right side of his head cutting off some of his ear. Due to the injury, Mr Corr had surgery on his right ear in order to try and fix it. He remained disfigured, suffered persistently from unsteadiness, mild tinnitus and severe headaches and had difficulty sleeping. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder due to this accident. Mr Corr became depressed following this accident and over time his depression got worse. He attempted to commit suicide on two occasions, the first time he took and overdose of drugs and was admitted to hospital. The second time he succeeded in taking his own life by jumping from a multi-storey car park.

• Procedural History

The case was brought to the Queen’s Bench Division in 2005 where it was dismissed by Mr. Nigel Barker, QC, a deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division. This dismissal was appealed by Eileen Corr, the widow of Mr Thomas Corr, to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in 2006. The decision of the Court of Appeal was then appealed by the defendants, IBC Vehicles Ltd, to the House of Lords, where Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury heard the case and gave their judgements.

• Law at Issue

The laws that give rise to these proceedings are negligence, causation, suicide, employee suffering serious injury at work du...

... middle of paper ...

...ical injuries as a result of his accident at work. He does agree that suicide is unreasonable in any circumstances to be seen as reasonable. However, because it had been a result of the breach it is considered valid.

Lord Bingham finds that Mr Corr did not voluntarily consent to committing suicide it was due to the severe depression he was suffering, as a cause of the injuries he had suffered. I find Lord Bingham’s argument to be very persuasive in the issue of whether Mr Corr’s suicide was a novus actus. I agree that constituting this act as a novus actus would damage the work that has taken place in order to change society’s view on suicide.

By going through each issue individually and giving his argument in dismissing the appeal he builds a stronger argument for his judgement. Lord Bingham finds that Mrs Corr is entitled to claim on behalf of Mr Corr.