EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 33
- The accident occurred due to the Claimant
accidentally pressing the throttle when turning left
and that nothing could have been done, by McLaren
or the guide, to avoid this.
(Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency), a government
agency responsible for overseeing the safe implementation of guided snowmobile tours in Finland. TUKES
is also responsible for providing written guidance to
snowmobile tour providers in Finland and for auditing
companies' safety practices. Mr Leinonen provided extremely clear and useful evidence to the Court setting
out the relevant local safety standards expected of
snowmobile tour providers in Finland.
One of the core aspects of the defence was the factual
evidence of the two guides involved in the Claimant's
tour. The evidence of the guides proved pivotal in
McLaren's successful defence. Both guides were found
to be credible, honest, and consistent in their accounts,
with Ritchie J commending their straightforward delivery and lack of guile. Their evidence established that
the Claimant had received a thorough safety briefing,
including specific instructions on throttle control during left-hand turns – a key issue in the case. The lead
guide's account of the accident, corroborated by contemporaneous medical records and post-incident
communications, was preferred over the Claimant's
shifting narrative. Together, their evidence dismantled the core allegations of negligence and reinforced
the conclusion that the Claimant's own error caused
the accident.
Pitfalls of Foreign Experts
The case also serves as a cautionary tale about the risks
of instructing foreign experts unfamiliar with the standards and expectations of English litigation. Our
snowmobile operations expert, Mr Stanley Gale, was
criticised by the Court for acting as an advocate rather
than an impartial expert. Mr Justice Ritchie found
that Mr Gale "ignored the Claimant's evidence and adopted
the guides' evidence".
This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that expert witnesses – particularly those from outside of this jurisdiction – are properly briefed on their
duties under CPR Part 35; failure to do so can significantly undermine a party's case. Mr Gale had extensive experience of appearing in US courts, where the
role of an expert has significant differences from that
in England & Wales. It's imperative that all experts,
particularly those with experience in courts where
their role is more adversarial, are given a chance to
fully understand their obligations and the nuances of
English procedure.
Also central to the defence was the evidence of
McLaren's accident reconstruction expert, Mr Mark
Wright, whose analysis was praised by the Court as
"thoughtful and well researched." This testimony stood in
stark contrast to that of the Claimant's accident reconstruction expert, Mr Craig Arnold, whose assumptions
were found to be "deeply faulted" and "inherently unlikely."
Mr Wright, instructed by Clyde & Co, was a former
snowmobile collision investigation auditer with the
Ontario and Toronto police, someone very familiar
with vehicle incidents on snow. Mr Arnold, instructed
by Stewarts, is a renowned accident reconstruction expert in the road traffic accident sphere but had no relevant experience with snowmobiles or accidents
occurring on the snow.
Strategy/takeaways
The Court's findings reaffirm the importance of
aligning expert evidence with the pleaded case. The
Claimant's pleaded case was that, in an attempt to
catch up to a guide who he says was speeding away
and out of sight, he lost control of the snowmobile and
collided with a tree. During the trial, Richtie J gave the
Claimant a number of opportunities to apply for permission to amend his pleaded case, but such opportunities were not taken. Also during the trial, the
Claimant's experts both admitted that a likely cause of
the accident was the accidental use of the throttle,
which was contrary to the Claimant's pleaded case.
This lack of coherence was ultimately fatal to the claim.
Ultimately, the Court preferred Mr Wright's expert
evidence, which serves as a reminder to obtain expert
evidence tailored to your case. Mr Wright's ability to
distil complex biomechanical and engineering concepts into clear, persuasive evidence was instrumental
in undermining the Claimant's case. His credibility
and impartiality were repeatedly affirmed by the
Court, which noted that "where Mr Wright and Mr
Arnold's opinions clashed, I generally accept the opinions of
Mr Wright."
Moreover, the judgment provides valuable guidance
on the application of local safety standards in international travel claims. The Court accepted that
McLaren's subcontractor, Luxury Action, had complied with Finnish safety norms specifically in relation
to the level of instruction and provision of equipment
that were provided, and that the decision to switch the
snowmobile to Standard mode was within the bounds
of reasonable judgment and that, in any event, it had
no causative potency. The case may be seen as guidance on where the line is between individual responsibility and the duty of care of organisers when
individuals undertake inherently risky activities.
Practitioners in the wider cross-border casualty sphere
will know the challenges of securing relevant experts to
a given case, whether it is a health and safety expert in
Spain or an accident reconstruction expert with a focus
on snowmobiling collisions. Where possible, an expert
with direct local or subject matter knowledge should
always be preferred. This issue is even more critical
when it comes to instructing a local standards expert,
it is easy to find an English expert willing to opine on
foreign local standards, but this is often a flawed logic.
On this matter, we were able to instruct a local standards expert who was familiar with the locally accepted
practices when it comes to commercial snowmobile
guided tours in Lapland. We instructed Mr Jaakko
Leinonen, a Senior Investigative Officer with TUKES
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Summary
This case exemplifies the approach and strength of
our International & Travel Claims team in navigating
complex cross-border liability claims. Our ethos on all
31
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
