Introduction

Case: Prescott v. The University of St Andrews
Court: Scottish Court of Session
Date: 13 January 2016
Parties: Robert Prescott (Pursuer) vs. The University of St Andrews (Defender)

This case involves Robert Prescott, a lecturer at the University of St Andrews, who alleged that he developed a rare form of cancer, localized peritoneal malignant mesothelioma, due to negligent exposure to asbestos during renovation works in the Old University Library between 1976 and 1979. Prescott sought damages from the University for the injury and loss suffered as a result of this alleged exposure.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Session evaluated Prescott's claim, focusing primarily on the factual evidence regarding his alleged asbestos exposure. The court found Prescott's recollections of the events during the renovation period to be unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence presented. Additionally, expert testimonies did not sufficiently establish the level of asbestos exposure necessary to prove negligence on the part of the University. Consequently, the court concluded that Prescott failed to prove that he was exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust, leading to the dismissal of his claim against the University.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key legal precedents that influenced the court's decision:

• Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) – Highlighted the fallibility of memory, especially when recalling events from the distant past, and the factors that can influence recollection in civil litigation.
• Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] 2 AC 229 – Established that a claimant must prove that the defendant's actions materially increased the risk of contracting the disease.
• Williams v University of Birmingham [2012] PIQR P4 – Emphasized the need to determine actual exposure levels to ascertain negligence.
• Keefe v The Isle of Man Steam Packet Co Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 – Discussed the allocation of evidential weight, particularly the necessity of evidence being presented through proper channels.

These precedents collectively underscored the importance of reliable evidence and the precise establishment of causation in negligence claims.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Pentland meticulously dissected the evidence presented by both parties. A significant portion of the judgment centered on the credibility and reliability of Prescott's testimony. The court identified several inconsistencies and gaps in Prescott's recollection of the renovation activities, particularly regarding his presence during asbestos stripping operations.

Key aspects of the court's legal reasoning include:

• Reliability of Evidence: The court found Prescott's memories from the 1970s to be fragmented and inconsistent, undermining his claims of asbestos exposure during that period.
• Corroborative Evidence: Testimonies from other individuals, such as John Reid and Professor Milner, did not substantiate Prescott's claims. Additionally, prior statements made by Prescott to medical professionals did not mention exposure in the Old Library.
• Expert Testimony: While engineering and medical experts presented insights into asbestos exposure risks, they could not definitively link Prescott's condition to asbestos exposure at the University due to the lack of precise exposure levels.
• Burden of Proof: Emphasized that the pursuer must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that negligent exposure occurred. Without concrete evidence of asbestos levels, this burden could not be met.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for evidence in negligence claims, especially those involving latent diseases like mesothelioma. Future cases will likely refer to this decision when assessing the reliability of witness testimonies and the necessity of corroborative evidence in proving exposure to harmful substances.

Moreover, it underscores the importance of proper documentation and expert testimony in establishing causation. Entities employing hazardous materials must ensure meticulous records of safety measures and exposure levels to defend against potential litigation successfully.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Negligence in Tort Law

Negligence involves a breach of duty of care that results in harm to another person. In this case, Prescott alleged that the University failed to protect him from asbestos exposure, leading to his illness.

Causation

Causation refers to the connection between the defendant's actions (or inactions) and the plaintiff's harm. Prescott needed to prove that asbestos exposure at the University directly caused his mesothelioma.

Material Increase in Risk

A material increase in risk means that the defendant's behavior significantly heightened the likelihood of the harm occurring. The court examined whether the University's conduct materially increased Prescott's risk of asbestos-related illness.

Expert Witness Testimony

Experts provide specialized knowledge to help the court understand complex issues. In this case, engineering and medical experts discussed asbestos exposure and its health implications, but their testimonies did not conclusively link Prescott's condition to his alleged exposure at the University.

Conclusion

The Prescott v. The University of St Andrews judgment underscores the critical importance of reliable and corroborative evidence in negligence claims. It reaffirms that plaintiffs must provide clear and consistent evidence to establish causation, especially in cases involving long-latency diseases like mesothelioma. This decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases, emphasizing meticulous evidence gathering and the challenges of relying solely on personal recollections in legal proceedings.