What is the effect of reading in excerpts of an opposing party’s examination for discovery?

O’Sullivan v. Turk should be mandatory reading by any counsel prior to his reading in excerpts of the opposing party’s discovery in order to be reminded of the dangers and pitfalls accompanying such exercise. Monnin J. then quoted extensively from the O’Sullivan case, including the following from pp. 686 and 687: . . . It is, of course, clear that the purpose of putting in parts of the examination for discovery of the opposite party is not “to show the inconsistencies of the story” told by that party. Here, the plaintiff, who did not need to put in any part of the defendant’s examination for discovery, has put in parts that directly contradict his own story; he did this at the close of his evidence with a full realization of its import; he did not try to contradict any part of it and the defendant’s counsel did not ask that any other part of the examination be put in. If the plaintiff had put the examination in first to get in certain admissions, he could then have led evidence to contradict the parts of the admissions harmful to his case. If, after all his evidence was in, he still needed to prove certain facts by admissions which were qualified, he could have put in the admissions and contradicted the qualifications. He might even be justified, though in my opinion it would be a most dangerous practice, in putting in the admissions and relying on the contradictions of the qualifications in the earlier evidence, if there were any such. But here he has put in statements which, without qualification, contradict the evidence he has put in, in all essential particulars. The plaintiff has presented two cases to the court, his own and the defendant’s which he has approbated. I hold that he has not satisfied the onus which is on him. (emphasis added)