Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 06

     
     1        responsible for health and safety, and second reference:
     2        "On examination admitted it is inevitable that customers
     3        would be served undercooked products", which we say is an
     4        admission of there being a risk in the light of the nature
     5        of the products.
     6
     7        Then day 84, page 41, he gave evidence that the Plaintiffs
     8        get a handful of queries and complaints each month about
     9        undercooked products.  I have not checked those references,
    10        but, for example, the same page, the next reference, he
    11        admitted the Plaintiffs' policy is to try to resolve
    12        customer complaints at the counter; they will be given a
    13        replacement sandwich or burger.  I think between him and
    14        Mr. Kenny, their evidence, especially under
    15        cross-examination, on the whole issue of complaints, we
    16        would like to be looked at carefully because, as far as we
    17        can see, complaints are not taken seriously, they are not
    18        documented, they are not investigated, even, as far as I
    19        recall, by the end it became apparent that only an outbreak
    20        of food poisoning would be properly investigated.
    21
    22        An outbreak is virtually impossible to identify except
    23        in very unusual circumstances where people learn of a
    24        common -- you know, by coincidence get in touch with each
    25        other to find out that this has happened.  Obviously, if
    26        every complaint was documented with an IRF form then the
    27        true pattern may become apparent, but, as we have heard
    28        from all our witnesses and even admission by John Atherton,
    29        customer complaints result in generally a replacement
    30        sandwich, et cetera et cetera.  So him and Mr. Kenny,
    31        I think, were the ones who dealt with that.
    32
    33        I will move on.  I think the main body of that questioning
    34        came during the Isle of Wight incident.  Do you remember?
    35        I cannot remember whether it was Mr. Atherton or Mr. Kenny
    36        who was questioned about the Isle of Wight food poisoning
    37        complaint, but I think it was a parent had been trying to
    38        pursue a complaint.  I seem to remember it was a
    39        substantial body of questioning, and I am sure you would
    40        have taken notes on it.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   What I may do, where I have said I have read
    43        the transcript, I will read the transcript.  I will do
    44        that, or at least I will read my notes, which are in fact
    45        fairly full, and refer to the transcript where I find the
    46        topic is raised.
    47
    48   MR. MORRIS:   Right, okay.  As I say, I am concentrating on the
    49        Plaintiffs' witnesses as I am going through this because,
    50        obviously, our witnesses are putting our case quite
    51        effectively, in any event.  Obviously, as far as we can
    52        see, every Plaintiffs' witness, virtually without exception
    53        in this case, came determined to defend McDonald's case and
    54        therefore any admissions are highly significant.
    55
    56        Moving swiftly through, on page 29, the first reference of
    57        Dr. Gonzales, he said in his statement actually, it is not
    58        part of the Plaintiffs' product specification that cattle
    59        used to supply beef be free from growth promoters or
    60        antibiotics, and the US has a different testing criteria to