A. Did the neighbours come out and speak to you after the fall? Q. No. A. Not that day? Q. Sorry? A. Not that day, the neighbours speak to you? didn’t Q. We have never spoken to the neighbours.” Later, the plaintiff confirmed she had read their statements, and the following matters were put to the plaintiff from the statement: (a) Ms Grice has given a statement that they heard you screaming “And on the other had a look over the fence and saw the side, ‘We neighbour, Savannah Maley, laying on the ground with the hose next to her with running what do you say about that?---Totally water’, false.” (b) then asked if she was okay and if she needed any help, what do “I you say about that? Totally false.” (c) screamed her arm was broken and she got up and went inside “‘She her did you say to anyone that your arm was broken before house’, you - - -?There was nobody there.” (d) or three days later in the evening Thomas and I were sitting in “‘Two the backyard. Savannah come outside and yelled out that Maley’s had an operation on her arm and going to have to have she’s she’s time off did you speak to her and Thomas some days later and work’ say you had broken your arm and you were going to have some time off work? No. Did you speak to her at all? No.” (e) alleged Thomas has yelled back to you that you have “It’s shouldn’t been up on the fence squirting the dogs with the hose, what do you say about that ...? I He make that allegation? wasn’t. didn’t No.” (f) Mr Brown says the same, and saying that the hose “Apparently he’s was running, the dogs were wet, and you deny all that? M’mm.” In submissions, counsel submits that the complaint to the plaintiff’s plaintiff’s hospital on the day of the injury amounts to a prior consistent statement admissible to rebut a recent invention of the mechanism of injury, and this is to be compared with two statements made some three years after the incident by the neighbours. He further submits that there was bad blood between the witnesses, at least Mr Brown, who admitted some animus towards the plaintiff.
A. Did the neighbours come out and speak to you after the fall? Q. No. A. Not that day? Q. Sorry? A. Not that day, the neighbours didn’t speak to you? Q. We have never spoken to the neighbours.” Later, the plaintiff confirmed she had read their statements, and the following matters were put to the plaintiff from the statement: (a) “And Ms Grice has given a statement that they heard you screaming on the other side, ‘We had a look over the fence and saw the neighbour, Savannah Maley, laying on the ground with the hose next to her with running water’, what do you say about that?---Totally false.” (b) “I then asked if she was okay and if she needed any help, what do you say about that? Totally false.” (c) “‘She screamed her arm was broken and she got up and went inside her house’, did you say to anyone that your arm was broken before you - - -?There was nobody there.” (d) “‘Two or three days later in the evening Thomas and I were sitting in the backyard. Savannah Maley’s come outside and yelled out that she’s had an operation on her arm and she’s going to have to have time off work’ did you speak to her and Thomas some days later and say you had broken your arm and you were going to have some time off work? No. Did you speak to her at all? No.” (e) “It’s alleged Thomas has yelled back to you that you shouldn’t have been up on the fence squirting the dogs with the hose, what do you say about that ...? I wasn’t. He didn’t make that allegation? No.” (f) “Apparently Mr Brown says the same, and he’s saying that the hose was running, the dogs were wet, and you deny all that? M’mm.” In submissions, plaintiff’s counsel submits that the plaintiff’s complaint to the hospital on the day of the injury amounts to a prior consistent statement admissible to rebut a recent invention of the mechanism of injury, and this is to be compared with two statements made some three years after the incident by the neighbours. He further submits that there was bad blood between the witnesses, at least Mr Brown, who admitted some animus towards the plaintiff.