Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 51


     
     1        relation to these statistics and in relation to the UK ones
     2        (where the exercise would be slightly different and would
     3        consist of disclosing something like for one year 400
     4        accident report forms), I make that stand for this reason
     5         -- there are two reasons:  The first is, as I submitted to
     6        your Lordship in November 1993, that I am resistant to the
     7        idea of giving the Defendants ammunition (unless I have to
     8        of course) for another 400, 700, 900 allegations of
     9        specific injuries within the restaurants, each one which
    10        would have to be tried out within the context of this case,
    11        and if one crosses the Atlantic one can multiply that by
    12        hundreds to get thousands.  That is the first point.
    13
    14        The second point I made back in November 1993 was that, in
    15        our submission, it was not necessary for the fair disposal
    16        of the action even to have statistics.  Your Lordship,
    17        having accepted that submission, turned round on me more
    18        recently because I had opened the case in such a way as
    19        might be thought to suggest that I was saying:  "Well,
    20        tee-hee, the only accidents that ever happened are those
    21        which the Defendants can prove".  I accepted that, of
    22        course, as I had to.
    23
    24        My Lord, in my submission, these statistics, both British
    25        and American, deal with that difficulty, because what you
    26        have there is the actual number of accidents graded so far
    27        as possible according to severity.  That is a foundation on
    28        which your Lordship is able to say:  "Well, here is the
    29        number of accidents that happened in this year; this is the
    30        number of employees employed nationwide, whether in America
    31        or Britain, in that year.  I can, therefore, make a
    32        judgment whether the number of accidents of any gravity is
    33        significant or not, significant in the sense that it
    34        suggests that McDonald's are or, on the contrary, are not
    35        careless of their employees' welfare".
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I did, and I have some additional evidence
    38        from Mr. Atherton now as to -- I will have to look it up
    39        again -- the numbers of entries which there might be in an
    40        accident book which would not be RIDDOR accidents, and so
    41        on.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  There was a figure eight but I cannot remember
    44        over what period of time.  Your Lordship is easily able, as
    45        we saw the other day when Mr. Atherton was in the witness
    46        box, to calculate that the number of RIDDOR accidents per
    47        year is something under one per restaurant.  Let the
    48        Defendants make what they can of that at the end of the
    49        case.  It does not help the progress of the case, indeed,
    50        it would be an abuse of the process in this case, for the 
    51        Defendants to seek to try to hack through the detail (which 
    52        is what they would do) of every single accident that has 
    53        occurred over, let us say, a five-year period.
    54
    55        That is, according to the authorities of Yorkshire
    56        Provident, Zuremberg and Lambishire(?) precisely the kind
    57        of fishing trip which the law forbids.  What matters is the
    58        number of accidents and their relative gravity compared
    59        with the number of employees, and when one looks at the
    60        Plaintiffs' systems to see whether, effectively, they are

Prev Next Index