[2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

I will not summarise every factual assertion. I will focus on the key issues.

The Claimant. After the messages which the Claimant sent to the Defendant, the Claimant’s next statement of his recollection will have provided the factual basis for some of the PAP letter of claim and then the factual assertions in his pleading. These are set out above. I noted that the former did not include the out of sight guide allegation. His evidence in chief was in his witness statement (9.7.2024). Another group went out before him. They returned in 30 minutes (so, I conclude that he knew the approximate duration of the circuit). They signed some forms. He and KM were briefed in somewhat of a rush. It took 5 minutes and was split into 4 sections. They told the guides that they were novices but the Claimant had ridden jet-skis. He accused the Defendant of failing to follow LA’s SSOB briefing guidance by failing to mention: (1) no alcohol; (2) the need for a driving licence; (3) the age over 16 rule; (4) the 1,000 euros excess; (5) the minimum separation should be 5 metres; (6) no overtaking; (7) the maximum speed limit or speed at turns or any warning about left hand turns and pushing the throttle; (8) only to drive on the right hand side of the track; (9) the hand signals; (10) the stop button; (11) the heating switches; (12) the tether cord; (13) the shape of the track or possible risks. He and KM were briefed on: (1) operating the SM including the brake on the left and the throttle on the right (there is a typo at para. 61) and using the throttle to slow down by releasing it; (2) riding position and leaning in on turns. All of the briefing took place with the Claimant and KM standing, not on any SMs. They were not told the briefing again sitting on SMs. They had no practice. They set off. The light was fading. It was snowing lightly. The track was compacted. They travelled for a few minutes – para 64 - or not more than 10 minutes – para. 66, in procession going not faster than 20 mph (32 kph) on straights and less on corners. He never looked at his speedometer. They stopped. He did not press the emergency stop button. Photos were taken. He and AP and later he and KM spoke. AP told the Claimant he was doing well and suggested that they go off together and have “some fun”. AP changed his controls. The Claimant did not say he wanted to go any faster. AP may have said he had changed it to “sport mode”. He did not explain. The Claimant now felt, in retrospect, that it was too powerful for him, but he did not take that view at the time. They set off on ride 2 and AP sped off. The separation between them increased and as the Claimant completed turns he could just see AP ahead in the distance on the next turn. He could not recall how many turns he completed. He completed the penultimate turn before the crash, which he said was a right-hand turn. As he exited the right-hand turn, he was able to see AP quite a considerable way ahead for the briefest of moments. AP then disappeared again as AP completed a left-hand turn. The Claimant was unable to see whether his brake lights were on or not. On this last turn before his accident, he had no guide because AP was too far ahead. He was not aware that the corner was a very sharp one. He wrote that between the exit of the right-hand penultimate turn and the left hand turn of his crash, there was a slightly downhill straight. He estimated his speed to be around 60kph in his attempt to keep up. He applied his brake heading into the left-hand turn. “I steered to the left and leaned into the turn. I can remember the turn being quite long. I remember negotiating the turn for some time before I lost control of the snowmobile. I remember reaching what I believe to be the apex of the turn before I lost control. I felt the snowmobile understeer during the turn. This caused me to lose control of the snowmobile. After losing control, I was unable to regain it. The snowmobile left the compacted ruts of snow marking out the trail.” He ducked to the right. Having seen the expert’s map he recalled the left turn as a particularly long one and he felt he had negotiated the apex before losing control. He does not remember if he gripped the accelerator tighter or not. He was aware that doing so would accelerate. He asserts that his memory of events post incident had not returned. His helmet had significant markings on it. He was certain that no tether was fixed to him. He had no recollection of telling AP that his glove got stuck in the throttle. Instead, he asserted AP suggested that to him by the ambulance. He explained how the hospital notes recorded accidental throttle use but explained this as the neurosurgical registrar making that suggestion to him. He said “no” in reply. He accepted writing the messages accepting responsibility after the accident. He explained these by asserting that he was embarrassed. His view changed later on when he read the SM manual.

In his verbal evidence in chief, he explained the timing of the photos taken on site before ride 1 and during the stop, which he produced as phone screen shots at the start of the trial. In cross examination, he asserted he did not have to disclose to LA his essential tremor which was managed by propanonol. He withdrew many of his criticisms of the guide’s briefing, in particular those relating to alcohol, age, driving licences and the insurance excess. He accepted that all of these were dealt with on the forms he signed, so there was no need to mention them again. He accepted that this being a one-way track there was no need to advise customers to drive on the right-hand side, so withdrew that criticism. He accepted that there was no need to be advised not to overtake when they were on a narrow track and in procession, so he withdrew that criticism. He withdrew the criticism about body positioning. He agreed that these criticisms were unfair. He accepted he was instructed on how to use the brake and throttle and that he should take his hand off the throttle when braking. He agreed that these were demonstrated to him by the guide whilst AP was sitting on a SM. He therefore abandoned his assertion in his witness statement about where the briefing took place. He denied being told that when turning left he should not push with his right hand. He recalled one hand signal being included. He accepted that in ride 1 they had travelled 600-700 metres and had made around 12 left and right turns. He accepted that when they stopped AP suggested that they split up and go faster and had told him the new mode would be “sportier”. He denied that AP warned him to be careful. In ride 2 he accepted that they had started slower and maintained a constant separation at first and had sped up on straights and slowed down at corners. He did not deny the assertion that he had negotiated tighter right and left turns than turn 2. He did not look at his speedo at all. He explained the confusion in his witness statement about when he last saw AP. It was just before AP turned into turn 1, not turn 2 and said that, at that time, he had just exited the right hand turn at the start of straight 1.

Stopping there. As explained above, the agreed plan of the scene did not go far enough back to show the right hand turn at the start of straight 1. However, the experts did measure straight 1 in various ways. Mr Arnold measured it at 62-80 metres and provided a photo looking back which showed the right-hand curve (C501, figure 1). His satellite image of “the straight” shows that overall it was much longer (C549) but did curve to the right and he marked the start and end of the broad right-hand curve on that image. So, if I accept Mr Arnold’s evidence on layout, the Claimant would have been 60-80 metres away from AP as AP entered turn 1, on the Claimant’s account.

The Claimant asserted that he never saw AP again and that the trees on the left-hand side of straight 2 obscured his view of AP after AP had passed the apex of turns 1 and 2. As to the events after the crash, the Claimant sought to explain the hospital notes by suggesting that the ambulance driver may have written notes on how his accident had occurred which were used by the hospital. He criticised the notes of his speed being 30 kph, because he only ever spoke of miles per hour. He maintained his evidence that the doctor suggested the mechanism of the crash was accidental throttle use, not him, and he denied that theory. The Claimant accepted that his post-accident texts were him accepting responsibility and he made no criticism of the guide at all at that time, or of too much power or understeer. In re-examination he explained that he had a brain bleed and was not thinking straight. His thought process cleared back in Florida and he decided that the guide did not guide him properly. In final questions he explained that he braked at T1 and at T2 then lost control. I will consider credibility below after reciting AP’s evidence and the expert evidence.

Kaitlin Mealor was the Claimant’s partner at the time, they have two children. They have since separated. In her witness statement she asserted that the Claimant is not a risk taker. She echoed and repeated the Claimant’s criticisms of the briefing. After the stop she asserted that the Claimant and AP drove off at greater speed. It was scary for her after the crash because she was left alone on the track when Mr Satta drove off to assist. When she was brought back to the resort the Claimant was in the ambulance. She asserted that he was disorientated. She did not speak to the guides.

In her verbal evidence in chief KM denied the conversation with Elliot Weir after the accident in which he asserted that she said that the Claimant was an “adrenaline junkie” who had regular accidents. In cross examination KM withdrew many of the allegations she had made in her witness statement about the briefing. She could not explain her motivation for making them in the first place but accepted that many were unfair. She became emotional when asked about her motivation. She rode slowly on the track and did not need further instruction to ride safely.

I did not find KM’s evidence to be of much assistance. She appeared to me to be playing a wing person role to support her ex-partner. When pressed on why she made many unfair criticisms of LA she ended the questioning by tears. I was not persuaded by her denial of the conversation with Elliot Weir after the accident about the Claimant being an adrenaline junkie who was always getting into accidents. This conversation may be put into context. The Claimant had bought two McLaren road cars, which are up the top of the list of the most powerful vehicles on roads worldwide. They were both on a McLaren ice driving holiday. Adrenaline cannot have been irrelevant to the experience of driving on ice in a superpowered car. There is nothing wrong in that. Life is for living and excitement and risk are part of that, but KM’s denial of the conversation did not have the ring of truth, on my assessment of her evidence. Nor was a supplementary witness statement put in making that denial. It only came out in evidence.