Day 189 - 20 Nov 95 - Page 44
1 because, presumably, if one of your witnesses -- I think
2 that must be so.
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: If I proffer a witness to speak for
5 McDonald's -----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you proffer a witness, then you can hardly
8 say that witness does not speak for McDonald's.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: I think, my understanding of what has been said
11 before is that a witness, a McDonald's person of any kind
12 of level, which is said before is Assistant Manager and
13 above (but we have not argued about that but, let us say,
14 for the sake of argument, Assistant Manager and above) is
15 giving evidence -- or, sorry, hearsay evidence about what
16 that person says carries weight inasmuch as it is negative
17 for the Plaintiffs and, therefore -- that is my
18 understanding.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I said was that I was minded to feel
21 that anyone who was a salaried Manager, which would include
22 Assistant Managers, evidence of what McDonald's position
23 was was admissible. There would then be the question of
24 how much, if any, weight one would attach to it, but that
25 is another matter which we are not concerned with at the
26 moment; but that even if it was an Assistant Manager, if it
27 is was something which related to something which had
28 happened to them, then that would not be evidence against
29 McDonald's.
30
31 So if, for instance, you had an Assistant Manager who said:
32 "I burnt myself on a grill for this reason or that
33 reason", that witness in saying that would not be speaking
34 on behalf of McDonald's saying that, but if they said: "In
35 the store where I was an Assistant Manager there was
36 habitual failure to clear up slippery slops on the floor",
37 then that would be admissible
38
39 MR. MORRIS: My understanding was that if, for example, a
40 McDonald's witness said: "I was told by the regional
41 Supervisor for the north east of the country", who was not
42 coming as a witness, "that we always dealt with accidents
43 speedily and properly", then that would not be evidence
44 because, although it was hearsay of somebody who is clearly
45 representing McDonald's, it would not, if -----
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, it could only be by way of it being an
48 admission against their interests rather than an averment
49 in their favour. But what I suggest is that the parties
50 work on that basis so far as Thursday's witness is
51 concerned. Mr. Rampton, if you want to challenge any of
52 the admissibility of the evidence to the point of saying it
53 is not satisfactory just to let it be adduced and argue
54 about it later ---
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: I will do that.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- then you will do that ---
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: I will.
