Case Note: Corr v IBC1511 words• PartiesMr Thomas Corr represented by his dependent widow (plaintiff) seeking an action against IBC Limited (defendant).• FactsThe plaintiff , Mr Thomas Corr was an engineer employed by IBC Vehicles Limited. Thomas, who was 31 at the time, was working on a machine when it threw a metal plate at him without warning. It hit the right side of his head, cutting off part of his ear. As a result of the injury, Mr Corr underwent surgery on his right ear to try to repair it. He was left disfigured, suffered persistent unsteadiness, mild tinnitus and severe headaches, and had difficulty sleeping. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of this incident. Mr Corr became depressed following this incident and over time his depression worsened. He attempted suicide on two occasions, the first time he took an overdose of drugs and was hospitalized. The second time he managed to take 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 challenged by Eileen Corr, Mr.'s widow. Thomas Corr, before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in 2006. The Court of Appeal's decision 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 judgments.• Law in questionThe laws giving rise to these proceedings are negligence, causation, suicide, employee suffering a serious injury at work as a result of. ..... middle of paper ...... physical injuries as a result of your accident at work. He agrees that suicide is unreasonable under any circumstances to be considered reasonable. However, since it was the result of the violation, it is considered valid. Lord Bingham believes that Mr Corr did not voluntarily consent to suicide due to the severe depression he was suffering from, which was the cause of the injuries he suffered. I find Lord Bingham's argument very convincing on the question of whether Mr Corr's suicide was a novus actus. I agree that constituting this act as a novus actus would damage the work being done to change society's view on suicide. By analyzing each issue individually and providing his argument in dismissing the appeal, he builds a stronger argument for his judgment. Lord Bingham considers that Mrs Corr is entitled to claim on Mr Corr's behalf.