Written By .

Employees, or their dependants, are entitled to claim damages for injury caused by a workplace accident if:

  • There was a duty of care owed to the injured person
  • That duty was not performed
  • It was reasonably foreseeable that harm would result from a failure to discharge the duty of care

In Corr v IBC Vehicles, the House of Lords ruled that the widow of a man who committed suicide six years after he suffered severe head injuries in a workplace accident should be compensated by his former employer.

Thomas Corr had no history of psychiatric illness prior to the accident in 1996, after which he underwent lengthy and painful reconstructive surgery. He began to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and subsequently became severely depressed. In May 2002, he killed himself by jumping from a multi-storey car park.

Mr Corr's widow sued IBC Vehicles for pain, suffering and loss caused by the accident and by her husband's suicide. IBC Vehicles admitted liability for the accident but denied liability under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for the suicide. The High Court awarded Mrs Corr damages of £82,520 but dismissed the Fatal Accidents claim. In the Court's view, the employer's duty of care to the deceased did not extend to preventing his suicide and his suicide was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision. It held that the key factor was not whether the particular outcome was foreseeable but whether the type of harm for which damages were sought was foreseeable. In this case, the foreseeable harm was depression and this was the cause of Mr Corr's suicide. There was therefore no break in the chain of causation.

IBC Vehicles appealed. It submitted that whilst depression had been a foreseeable consequence of its breach of duty, Mr Corr's suicide was not. It was an unreasonable, voluntary act that had broken the chain of causation. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and held that the employer was liable under the Fatal Accidents Act, even though Mr Corr's death was self-inflicted.

The Lords held that to establish liability it was not necessary to be able to foresee the precise form that damage resulting from a breach of the duty of care might take and suicide could not be regarded as so unusual and unpredictable as to be outside what was reasonably foreseeable. Mr Corr's suicide was the action of a man suffering from a severe depressive illness that impaired his ability to make reasoned and informed judgments about his future and the illness, as had been acknowledged, was a consequence of the employer's actions. Lord Bingham said, "It is in no way unfair to hold the employer responsible for this dire consequence of its breach of duty although it could well be thought unfair to the victim not to do so."

This decision could have serious implications for employers. As well as ensuring that health and safety policies and procedures are in place to minimise the risk of injury to employees, employers should also have effective procedures for identifying and dealing with workplace stress and bullying.

Written By .

Whilst anyone can ask their employer for more flexible working arrangements, at the moment only parents and others (such as guardians) who are responsible for looking after children under the age of six years (or 18 years if the child is disabled) and those with caring responsibilities for adult relatives have the legal right to request to work flexible hours, provided they have worked for their employer for 26 weeks continuously before the application is made. The employer is obliged to take the request seriously.

The Government has now announced a proposed extension of this right to those with children up to age 16, as recommended in an independent review carried out by Imelda Walsh, the HR Director of Sainsbury's. This will mean that an extra 4.5 million parents in Britain will gain the right to request flexible working. The Government will now consult on implementing the proposals.

Where the legal right to request flexible working exists, an employer must consider a request seriously and must follow a set procedure and timetable. An employer can only refuse such a request if they can demonstrate a clear business reason for doing so.

The review document can be found at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46092.pdf.

If you receive a request for flexible working arrangements and would like individual advice, please contact Dean Parnell.

Pages

UK Top Tier Firm 2020 Lexcel Practice Management Standard Birmingham Law Firm of the Year for 2011 Resolution Collaborative Family Lawyer
The Law Society Accredited in Family Law Conveyancing Quality Scheme

 

Subscribe to Personal Law Updates