[2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

On the balance of probabilities, taking into account all the evidence, I make the following findings of fact.

The LA safety documentation is not criticised by the joint Finnish Law experts and no pleaded allegation of breach arose from it. The SSOB did not cover change of mode, did not expressly state that LHT risks had to be explained (although it did cover them impliedly under briefing on throttle operation), and did not require proper post-accident investigation and preservation of evidence at the scene. These matters, although raised in cross examination, were not pleaded as breaches of duty.

The Lynx Xtrim 900 was appropriate for use by LA for the McLaren customers. It should only be used in ECO mode initially. The Learning Key issue was never properly addressed and I can make no findings upon it. In both ECO mode and Standard mode, the SM which the Claimant rode probably had a similar top speed, however acceleration was more sluggish in ECO. I make no finding on whether or not this SM suffered from understeer at all or more or less than any other SM. That term was used by different witnesses in different ways. Understeer on cars on roads means that when the wheel is turned the car does not turn as much as the angle requested through steering input. So, the front tyres struggle for traction, causing the vehicle to under-rotate and push wide through a turn. A snow mobile has skis on the front and the mechanics of how those and the drivetrack interact was not explained to me with clarity. I understand that if a SM goes faster than the critical speed on a corner it will not turn sufficiently and will run off the track. That could be called understeer, but I do not find the terminology helps to resolve the issues. When turning a corner, either the SM is going slow enough to have enough traction under the front skis and assistance from weight positioning, so that it will turn the corner, or when going too fast, it will have inadequate traction and will shoot off the corner.

The Claimant and KM were given a SM operation briefing after signing 3 forms which informed them of the legal conditions for being able to ride SMs. Those included age, driving licence, alcohol, medical conditions and the insurance excess. One of the forms made it clear that SM riding is arduous and not without risk. The Claimant agreed to follow the instructions given. The Claimant did not disclose his essential tremor. In my judgment he should have disclosed it. The decision would then have been made for LA or McLaren by a medic, not just the Claimant. I do not have evidence about what decision would have been made despite the medic giving evidence.

The briefing by AP, in the presence of Mr Satta, covered all the relevant matters set out in the SSOB guide. I do not consider that they both ignored the Powerpoint and the training which they received about LHTs. Specifically, I find that the briefing covered the steering, braking, turning and proper use of the throttle. It covered instructing the Claimant to release the throttle to slow down. The Claimant was told that when turning left he should pull with his left hand and should not push with his right, because he might grip or press the accelerator. In relation to para. 29 of the Particulars of Claim I find that the briefing covered the emergency stop button and the tether cord. The Claimant was utterly familiar with tethers because he owned a jet-ski which used tethers. He knew that it had to be connected. It covered leaning in and positioning. It did not cover driving on the right and did not need to. It covered keeping proper separation distances. The Claimant was informed to follow the guide’s pace and maintain a safe separation. The main part of the briefing took place with AP sitting on a SM and later the Claimant sat on a SM and the briefing was repeated. The Claimant’s PAP assertion was incorrect about the lack of any briefing whilst sitting on SMs. I do not consider that there was a requirement in local Finnish Law to describe the track. It was for beginners, roughly oval and was short. I do not accept that the double left turns were dangerous per se, especially when the guide was in sight of the Claimant as he exited turn 1. There was no need to advise no overtaking on this relatively narrow track. There was no requirement to have a separate practice area. Informing the Claimant that he would be riding around an oval track with left and right turns would have provided no safety benefit. There was no dangerous corner or corner combination per se which had to be pointed out to the Claimant. I find that the Claimant knew what a 900cc engine meant.

I find that the visibility, temperature, track and light snow did not make running a snowmobile safari unsafe. The light was flat. The SMs had their headlights on. These highlighted the banks each side of the track The trees were visible in contrast to the snow. Ride 1 took 1-2 minutes and covered 600-700 metres at lowish speeds. That was the standard LA practice distance and complied with local standards. It had not caused dangers during over 2 years of use. Both the Claimant and KM were tethered. He drove faster than KM and he drove confidently. Both guides noticed that. A gap was created between the Claimant and KM. The Claimant was not intent on sharing the SM experience with KM in a procession. He wanted more speed. AP noticed and offered it. The Claimant asked KM if she minded if he rode away with AP, leaving her alone with Mr Satta and she agreed. AP changed the mode to Standard and informed the Claimant that it was more powerful and/or sporty and advised him to take more care. He agreed willingly, with no reluctance. He wanted more speed. He should have understood that being guided at higher speed would be more challenging and risky. I consider that he did understand this. He also understood that they would go through trees. I find that he was tethered. He knew tethers were a safety device. I make no finding who connected the tether, but I find that AP checked that it was connected.

I find that AP did not ride at excessive speed. He guided at a safe speed and maintained a safe separation from the Claimant taking into account the visibility and the snow falling. AP and the Claimant set off a bit faster and AP gradually increased the speed as the Claimant successfully negotiated 10 or more turns, both left and right. The Claimant was getting what he desired, speed and excitement. As AP went up to 60 kph on longer straights, he observed the Claimant driving confidently. They negotiated more turns safely, after using a higher speed on the longer straights.

When AP came to straight 1, AP looked back before braking and saw the Claimant riding 20-30 m behind. The total look back distance along the track was 62-80 m to the right hand curve at the start of straight 1. AP then braked for turn 1, his rear lights were on. The Claimant probably got closer to AP because he was still on the straight when AP braked down to 10-20 kph and turned.

On straight 2, AP did not look back. As the Claimant exited turn 1, I find that AP was in sight ahead, probably 18-20 m away. I find that AP rode around turn 2 at a safe speed showing the Claimant how to do so and the line to follow. I do not know what the Claimant did on straight 2. He cannot recall. He never looked at his speedo, which was careless. I do not consider it likely that he applied maximum acceleration. There were trees dead ahead. He may have used the throttle to some extent to maintain speed or increase it a little. He just followed the guide. I do not find that the Claimant was trying to catch up. In any event he reached turn 2 and turned through 25 degrees, then squeezed or pushed the throttle by mistake with his right hand and shot straight forwards into a tree. In whatever mode, that accidental throttle use would have caused him to go straight off the track. The difference between modes is not so great as to have avoided the impact.

In the last second before impact he ducked right and, at impact, was thrown slightly to the right of the tree. I find that his left leg was in contact with the SM and/or the tree and was injured. His forehead suffered an impact on the left side, probably with the tree, but it was not a full on blow, so the helmet was not dented or cracked, only scuffed. He ended up face down on the far side and to the right of the tree, with his legs away from the tree and his head towards it. The throw distance calculation does not assist on his impact speed. It was clearly over 26 kph or he would not have exited the track. I do not find that the Claimant panicked. He just made an error. The tether cord is visible on the ground to the right of the SM in the photos. I consider that it disconnected from the SM when his body was thrown off. I do not know how it became disconnected from his body. This was never properly investigated by LA.

When AP heard the impact he was probably about 19 m further down the track. When the Claimant accidentally accelerated, the gap was probably similar. AP stopped 30 m from the crash. After the accident the Claimant was cared for by AP, regained consciousness and had regained composure by the time the medic had given some care to him. He was able to ride back on a SM between a rider and another passenger. At the ambulance in the car park he told AP that he accidentally pressed the throttle in the middle of turn 2 and blamed his glove. At the first hospital he told medics he was going 30 kph. At hospital 2, he told a medic he accidentally hit the gas instead of the brakes. He considered that he himself was the cause of the accident. He did not blame AP for rushing him or disappearing.

There is no dispute on the duty of care or the standard of care. I have summarised the law above.