The effect of the suicide of the victim was also considered in Corr v IBC Vehicles [2008] 2 WLR 499. Unlike Reeves and Kirkham, the duty of care owed by the defendant in this case did not relate specifically to a responsibility to prevent the claimant’s suicide. Mr Corr suffered a severe head injury in an accident at work. This not only caused physical injuries, but also led to significant psychological symptoms, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Six years after the accident, he killed himself. Defence counsel argued that, except where the defendant had a specific responsibility to prevent the claimant from actively harming himself, the act of the injured person in committing suicide would amount to a novus actus unless he or she was legally insane, and therefore not in control of his actions. The House of Lords rejected this approach.

Mr Corr's suicide was not a voluntary, informed decision taken by him as an adult of sound mind making and giving effect to a personal decision about his future. 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, as is accepted, a consequence of the employer's tort. 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 [per Lord Bingham].