Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited

Andrew Cannestra v McLaren Automotive Events Limited was a High Court personal injury claim arising from a snowmobile crash during a luxury Lapland driving experience. The customer said the organiser was responsible because the briefing and guiding were unsafe, and because the guide allegedly rode too far ahead after switching the snowmobile into a more powerful mode.

The court accepted that package travel rules applied and that the organiser could be responsible for the proper performance of the activity through its suppliers. But the claim still failed. The judge found that most of the alleged failings were not proved and that the accident was caused by the rider’s own accidental throttle use during a left turn. For businesses, the case is useful because it separates three issues clearly: duty, breach and causation.

The claimant had previously bought McLaren road cars and was on McLaren’s marketing list for driving events. He attended a four-day ice-driving experience in Lapland and joined a snowmobile safari offered as part of the wider package. During the ride, he left the main group with the lead guide so he could go faster, while his partner stayed behind with another guide.

After the crash, the claimant initially treated the accident as his own mistake. The judgment records that he apologised, offered to pay for the damaged snowmobile and later sent a message describing the incident as his error and responsibility. Medical records also recorded him saying he had accidentally hit the throttle instead of the brake. Months later, however, his legal case focused on alleged failings in the briefing, the guide’s conduct and the decision to switch the machine into a more powerful mode.

That change in position mattered. The judge paid close attention to the differences between the early account, the pre-action letter, the pleaded case and the evidence at trial. He concluded that the claimant’s case had shifted over time and that the later version blaming the guide for disappearing ahead was not made out on the evidence.

The court said the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 applied to the contract. It also said there was an implied term that reasonable care and skill would be used in providing the snowmobile safari services included in the package. The defendant accepted that it owed a duty of care.

The real questions were narrower. Did the organiser, through its guide and supplier arrangements, breach the applicable local Finnish safety standard when briefing the rider, changing the snowmobile from ECO mode to Standard mode, or guiding him around the track? If so, did any of those breaches cause the crash? And if there was liability, was the accident attributable to the traveller’s own conduct?

That structure is commercially important. Businesses often focus only on whether something went wrong operationally. Courts will usually ask a sequence of questions instead: what duty applied, what standard applied, what exactly was breached, and did that breach actually cause the loss?

The judge found that the claimant had been given an adequate briefing covering the relevant operating points, including steering, braking, turning, throttle use, the emergency stop button and the tether cord. He also found that the claimant had been told not to push with his right hand during a left turn because that could lead to pressing the accelerator. The court rejected the argument that the track itself needed a separate warning as a dangerous route for this beginner-level activity.

On the equipment setting, the judge found that changing from ECO mode to Standard mode was within the local standard in the circumstances. The claimant had ridden confidently, wanted more speed and was warned that the machine would be more powerful and that he needed to take more care. The court also found that the guide built speed gradually on the second ride.

The judge did find one breach: the guide should have looked back on the second straight. But that did not help the claimant because the court found it had no causative effect. The guide was still in sight, the claimant was not trying to catch up to an out-of-sight guide, and the crash happened because he accidentally applied the throttle during the second left turn. The claim was dismissed.

This case is not just about snowmobiles. It is about any business that sells a premium experience and relies on local operators, guides, instructors or venues to deliver part of it. If your business packages the experience and takes the customer booking, you may be the party the customer sues, even if someone else ran the activity on the ground.

The judgment shows what courts look for in practice. They want to see a coherent safety system: written briefing materials, trained staff, route or activity design suitable for the customer group, sensible decisions about progression or speed, and records showing what happened before and after the incident. They also look closely at whether your documents and witness evidence line up. Inconsistent accounts, missing records or overconfident expert evidence can damage a defence.

For SMEs, the practical point is simple: supplier management is not just a procurement issue. It is part of your legal risk control. If you market the experience under your brand, your contracts, onboarding and audit process should reflect that reality.

If your business sells guided or adventure-style experiences, this judgment gives a practical checklist for reducing disputes. The aim is not to eliminate all risk. It is to show that the activity was designed and delivered with reasonable care and that your records can prove it later.

Start with the customer journey. The booking terms, pre-event information, declarations, on-site briefing and guide conduct should all tell the same story. If your supplier uses a different process in practice from the one described in your sales material or contract, that gap can become a litigation problem after an accident.