Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 77


     
     1        used intelligently do have some value.
     2
     3   Q.   Have you got there your second statement which was made for
     4        the purposes of this case?  Before I ask you to look at it,
     5        can I ask you preliminary question or two?  Have you given
     6        expert evidence in court before?
     7        A.  Yes.
     8
     9   Q.   Is it a task -- I will not call it a duty -- you take
    10        seriously?
    11        A.  Very.
    12
    13   Q.   Very?
    14        A.  Yes.
    15
    16   Q.   You recognise that not only the court but the opposite
    17        party is entitled to have the benefit of everything
    18        relevant which you may have to say about the subject upon
    19        which you are asked to give evidence?
    20        A.  Yes.
    21
    22   Q.   You do?  Would you please turn to paragraph 20 in this
    23        statement?
    24        A.  Yes.
    25
    26   Q.   I will read it out.  This is your visit to McDonald's in
    27        Leeds.  "Turning to the shop operation itself, the products
    28        concerned present little risk".  By that, I take it you
    29        mean the hamburgers and the chicken bits and pieces, do
    30        you?
    31        A.  In relation to salmonella, yes.  I do agree.  I do not
    32        thing, frankly, salmonella food poisoning from McDonald's
    33        is a major risk.
    34
    35   Q.   You do not think it is?
    36        A.  No, I do not.
    37
    38   Q.   Would you agree that, in truth, in reality, in the real
    39        world -- I am not now interested in theoretical
    40        possibilities or fantasies of that kind -- the risk is
    41        insignificant?
    42        A.  Would you be content with me saying I would not waste a
    43        lot of time on it?
    44
    45   Q.   No, I would be very content with that.  Thank you,
    46        Mr. North.  I will just read on.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I had not appreciated that that sentence
    49        related to salmonella alone.  Did it not relate to all
    50        kinds of food poisoning, in lay terms? 
    51        A.  If we say food poisoning, yes.  I would not accept it 
    52        in relation to E.coli 0157.  I would ----- 
    53
    54   Q.   I said food poisoning in the lay sense, not your technical
    55        sense.
    56        A.  Yes, quite.
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  If you say that this paragraph is to be confined
    59        to the risk of salmonella or salmonellosis at McDonald's,
    60        then I can leave it as a paragraph, which is what I now

Prev Next Index