Day 132 - 07 Jun 95 - Page 37


     
     1
     2   Q.   In paragraph 15, the second paragraph in that section,
     3        about the slip accident of Melanie O'Riordan?
     4        A.  Yes.
     5
     6   Q.   "The fact that the tiles were subsequently changed will
     7        probably have little to do with this incident"?
     8        A.  Yes.
     9
    10   Q.   Surely, it has everything to do with this incident in terms
    11        of that is the purpose of changing the tiles, to prevent or
    12        try to reduce the number of slips, is it not?
    13        A.  Yes, I am making the point that it is not necessarily
    14        as a result of a specific accident.
    15
    16   Q.   You do not know that, do you?
    17        A.  There is a continuing programme of trying to improve
    18        floor surfaces which we have already discussed.  That is
    19        going on and it is a long-term thing.  If they are changing
    20        a standard tile within McDonald's, they are changing it
    21        because they are trying a new floor surface or whatever and
    22        not because you have had an individual slip.  These are
    23        standard tiles.
    24
    25   Q.   So when you say it would probably have little to do with
    26        this incident, you do not actually know?
    27        A.  Absolutely not; that is why I said "probably".
    28
    29   Q.   But is not a fact of life, Mr. Purslow, that necessity is
    30        the mother of invention.  That is not maybe the correct
    31        phrase, but I mean there is nothing that can prompt a
    32        change that is possibly there in the background to bring
    33        that forward when there a particular incident happens?
    34        A.  Can I point out that if we are talking about floors
    35        particularly, we have already established that something
    36        like 50 per cent of all reportable accidents in McDonald's
    37        are caused by slips, yes?  Consequently, if we were to
    38        change the floor after each and every one, they would be
    39        forever ripping up tiles.  My point is that the likelihood
    40        is that this is part of a general policy of reviewing
    41        flooring surfaces rather than response to a specific
    42        incident.
    43
    44   Q.   The bottom of page 16:  "If there had been a case to
    45        answer, undoubtedly, proceedings would have been taken";
    46        whatever the facts of the case are, you are making the same
    47        assumption that you made before?
    48        A.  I would have to look at the individual witness
    49        statement to comment further on that.  I have not got it in
    50        front of me. 
    51 
    52   Q.   Whether or not action was taken, you are making that same 
    53        assumption you made earlier on, that you are implying that
    54        if someone does not take action, legal action, that is
    55        evidence of an accident did not, in fact, occur?
    56        A.  No, I did not say that at all.  What I am saying is
    57        that if an accident is investigated by an Environmental
    58        Health Officer, if he decides that it is an incident which
    59        he will not prosecute on, there may be some fault, but it
    60        does, it does suggest, something about whether the company

Prev Next Index