Day 132 - 07 Jun 95 - Page 34
1 I was making the point that it is hardly a normal
2 situation, or it is not part of the system, or whatever.
3 But I think you would probably have to ask a McDonald's
4 person if you want an explanation on that, my Lord.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We will see if we have evidence on that. What
7 is being put to you in a sense is that you have gone
8 through all these statements and looked, positively gone
9 looking, for ways in which you might dissipate the effect
10 of the statements?
11 A. That is not the intent of my comments, my Lord. I was
12 asked to look at those statements and make comment upon
13 if. Having read through, I do not know how many statements
14 it was, but it was a great many of them, and some of them
15 were fairly rambling statements, I made comments on the
16 bits that I thought were appropriate. I have not sought to
17 deny any of the other points. These are the things that
18 I think I could make useful comment on.
19
20 MR. MORRIS: That is exactly what I am putting to you, and I am
21 going to go through this, that because you are not
22 independent, an independent expert, you are, in fact,
23 someone who is loyal to McDonald's and to industry rather
24 than employees, you are effectively ----
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You do not have to put it again, Mr. Morris.
27 You have put that once. It is obvious that I did summarise
28 what you were really suggesting.
29
30 THE WITNESS: My Lord, the ----
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. I have stopped the questions. I am
33 going to stop the answer. It is a matter for comment for
34 you to make in due course by which stage we will have heard
35 all the evidence and you can take what you will from it and
36 comment.
37
38 MR. MORRIS: In the next paragraph you said that -- the last
39 sentence -- "We are faced with speculation rather than
40 fact"?
41 A. Yes.
42
43 Q. Which, of course, is that not exactly what you have been
44 doing in your statement in response to the witness
45 statements of the Defence?
46 A. No, I am pointing out that in this particular instance
47 the witness said in a very generalised way that they were
48 dissuaded. There was no specific comment or anything like
49 that. I made the point that I could not comment on it
50 because of that point.
51
52 Q. Paragraph 7, referring to an incident ---
53 A. Yes.
54
55 Q. -- you have put: "If the injured had felt able to prove
56 negligence on the part of the Company, why was action not
57 taken?"
58 A. Yes.
59
60 Q. Is not that a staggeringly naive statement from someone who
