Corr Estate v. IBC Vehicles Ltd., (2008) 384 N.R. 27 (HL)

• Case Date: February 27, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 384 N.R. 27 (HL)

Corr Estate v. IBC Vehicles Ltd. (2008), 384 N.R. 27 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.R. TBEd. JA.044

Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) (respondent) v. IBC Vehicles Limited (appellants)

([2008] UKHL 13)

Indexed As: Corr Estate v. IBC Vehicles Ltd.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

February 27, 2008.

Summary:

Corr was injured at work when an automated arm struck him on the right side of his head and severed most of his right ear. As a result he underwent long and painful reconstructive surgery with lingering complications, including post traumatic stress disorder. He suffered a depression which worsened with the passage of time. Corr ultimately committed suicide. His widow sought to pursue an action against the employer under s. 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act to recover the financial loss attributable to Corr's suicide. An issue arose as to whether the loss attributable to Corr's death by suicide was recoverable by his dependent widow under s. 1 of the Act  (i.e., was the loss too remote). The trial judge held that the suicide fell outside the employer's duty and was not reasonably foreseeable. Corr's widow appealed.

The Court of Appeal, Ward, L.J., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The employer appealed.

The House of Lords, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, dismissed the appeal, holding that the widow could recover damages against the employer, with no reduction, in this case, for contributory negligence by the deceased. Lord Scott of Foscote agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, but opined that the deceased's damages should be reduced by 20% on account of contributory negligence.

Torts - Topic 60

Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - [See Torts - Topic 7505 ].

Torts - Topic 62

Negligence - Causation - Intervening causes (novus actus interveniens) - [See Torts - Topic 7505 ].

Torts - Topic 6603

Defences - Contributory negligence - General - Apportionment of fault - General (incl. breach of contract cases) - [See Torts - Topic 7505 ].

Torts - Topic 6632.2

Defences - Contributory negligence - Particular cases - Fatal accidents - [See Torts - Topic 7505 ].

Torts - Topic 7505

Fatal accidents - Cause of action (incl. suicide cases) - Corr was physically injured at work by the negligence of his employer - He suffered a depression, ultimately resulting in him committing suicide - His widow sought to pursue an action against the employer under the Fatal Accidents Act to recover the financial loss attributable to Corr's suicide - An issue arose as to whether the loss was too remote - The House of Lords held that the widow could recover damages, with no reduction, in this case, for contributory negligence by the deceased - The conduct of taking his own life could not be said to fall outside the scope of the duty which his employer owed him - The depression was a foreseeable consequence of the employer's breach of duty which was enough for the widow to succeed - The chain of causation was not broken by the deceased's suicide (i.e., there was no novus actus interveniens) - Here the suicide was not a voluntary informed decision taken by a man of sound mind - Rather, it was the response of a man suffering from a severely depressive illness which impaired his capacity to make reasoned and informed judgments about his future, such illness being a consequence of the employer's tort - The majority of the court held that damages should not be reduced on account of contributory negligence by the deceased in this case - Three of the judges opined, however, that a defendant such as the employer in this case could, in principle, succeed in an argument for reduction in damages based on contributory negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act).

Cases Noticed:

Page v. Smith, [1996] A.C. 155; 182 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 7, 29, 38, 46, 54].

Simmons v. British Steel plc, [2004] UKHL 20; [2004] I.C.R. 585; 323 N.R. 273 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 8].

AMP General Insurance Ltd. v. Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales, [2001] NSWA 186; [2001] Aust. Torts Reports 81-619, refd to. [para. 9].

Reeves v. Metropolitan London Commissioners of Police, [2000] 1 A.C. 360; 245 N.R. 362 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 9, 32, 35, 47, 58].

St. George's Healthcare N.H.S. Trust v. S., [1999] Fam. 26, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Kennedy, [2007] UKHL 38; [2007] 3 W.L.R. 612; 379 N.R. 184 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Wright Estate v. Davidson et al. (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 254; 21 W.A.C. 254; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 698 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Murdoch v. British Israel World Federation (New Zealand) Inc., [1942] N.Z.L.R. 600, refd to. [para. 16].

McFarland v. Stewart (1900), 19 N.Z.L.R. 22, refd to. [para. 16].

Reeves v. Metropolitan London Commissioners of Police, [1999] Q.B. 169, refd to. [paras. 22, 36, 48].

Smith v. Leech Brain & Co., [1961] 3 All E.R. 1159; [1962] 2 Q.B. 405 (Eng. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Kirkham v. Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police - see Kirkham v. Anderton.

Kirkham v. Anderton, [1990] 2 Q.B. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 50].

Page v. Smith, [1994] 4 All E.R. 522 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

M'Naghten's Case, Re (1843), 10 Cl. & Fin. 200 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd., [1953] A.C. 663, refd to. [paras. 44, 48].

Champagne v. United States of America (1994), 513 N.W.2d. 75 (N.D. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - see White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al.

White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al., [1999] 2 A.C. 455; 234 N.R. 121 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Fatal Accidents Act, 1976 (U.K.), sect. 1 [para. 1].

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (U.K.), sect. 1(1) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk, John F., and Lindsell, The Law of Torts (19th Ed. 2006), p. 2-78 [para. 27].

Counsel:

Jeremy Cousins, Q.C., John Brennan and Justin Kitson (Instructed by Moran & Co.), for the appellants;

John Foy, Q.C., Andrew Ritchie and Robert McAllister (Instructed by Rowley Ashworth), for the respondents.

Agents:

[Not disclosed.]

This appeal was heard on December 3 to 5, 2007, before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was given on February 27, 2008, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see paragraghs 1 to 23;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 24 to 33;

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see paragraphs 34 to 44;

Lord Mance - see paragraphs 45 to 52;

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury - see paragraphs 53 to 71.