A rail worker was oiling the track when he was killed; no ‘stopping man’ has been provided. Under a statute, compensation was given to workers who were “replacing or relaying” track but there was no statute to cover workers that were oiling a track. By applying the Literal rule no compensation was given to the family. This case is an example of how the literal rule can lead to an unjust conclusion. Because the act was interpreted by using the literal rule there was no ambiguity in the words of the act. If the mischief rule was applied, it is possible that the widow of the worker would had gain compensation. If the mischief rule was applied the court would be able to “suppress the mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy.” (e-lawresources.co.uk. …show more content…
When hearing a witness there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration. It need to be considered if the witness has a motive, how well they can recall the events, if a certain outcome might benefit them and also their credibility. Although eye witness testimony has been challenged as biased or insufficient (Wells& Loftus, 1984) a certain type of witness can contribute to a criminal case because of their knowledge. Expert witnesses are individuals that have experience, skills, knowledge and expertise in subjects beyond that of an ordinary person. Their opinion is accepted as an evidence. Their expert evidence is mostly needed when the issue requires technical or scientific knowledge. Although their testimony is important, it can arise certain problems. Because of their expertise it can be hard for jurors to evaluate their scientific testimony. In a criminal trial both the defendant and the plaintiff can present an expert witness whose testimony conflict. This can lead to great confusion as the jurors might decide of their credibility based on personal features and therefore their purpose, to give an expert evidence would not be achieved. Although expert witnesses can offer a scientific or technological opinion, they must make sure that jurors can understand the evidence they present. Witness testimony with an expert witness can therefore become extremely useful or confusing, depending on how capable the expert