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
