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.

Prev Next Index