Clyde & Co has successfully defended McLaren Automotive Events in a $25mn personal injury claim, following a High Court ruling that offers valuable precedent for insurers and tour operators managing cross-border disputes under the UK’s Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.
The case—Andrew Cannestra v McLaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)—centred on allegations by a Florida-based neurosurgeon injured during a snowmobile excursion in Lapland, Finland.
The claimant participated in a high-end McLaren-hosted ice-driving experience and argued that poor instruction led to a high-speed crash, which allegedly ended his medical career.
After an eight-day hearing, Mr Justice Ritchie rejected the claim outright. He ruled that the incident stemmed from the claimant’s mishandling of the throttle.
Safety briefings had been delivered clearly by trained guides, and the course design met Finnish regulatory requirements. The judge described the claimant’s account as implausible.
Craig Evans and Thomas Byrne of Clyde & Co led McLaren’s defence. Their strategy focused on jurisdiction-specific evidence and precise factual reconstruction.
The court sided with McLaren’s expert, a former Canadian snowmobile collision investigator, instead of the claimant’s UK-based expert, who lacked relevant field experience.
A Finnish government officer from TUKES also confirmed that the event complied fully with local safety laws.
The outcome is a strong result for McLaren and reinforces the legal value of compliance with regional standards in international injury claims.
It also highlights the strategic risk of relying on experts with no practical knowledge of the activity in question or the applicable legal framework.
This judgment sends a clear message to insurers and their clients. When operators follow local regulations and give proper guidance, user-caused accidents can be defended successfully.
Craig Evans, Partner at Clyde & Co
Andrew Cannestra v McLaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)
Dr Andrew Cannestra, a neurosurgeon from Florida, attended a luxury McLaren Arctic Experience in Lapland in February 2020. As part of the package, he participated in a guided snowmobile tour.
During the ride, he veered off a forest track and crashed into a tree, sustaining a significant traumatic brain injury and leg damage.
He later claimed damages exceeding £14 m under negligence and breach of contract via the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Ritchie found that McLaren’s subcontractors provided appropriate safety briefings consistent with Finnish safety norms.
He concluded the guides did not drive recklessly or disappear from view before the crash, and that proposed higher speed modes had no causative impact.
Instead, the Court identified Dr Cannestra’s accidental throttle activation while negotiating a left-hand turn as the sole cause. The briefing was judged adequate, and the guide’s conduct compliant with industry standards.
Following an 8-day trial, the judge ruled in McLaren’s favour, entirely dismissing the claim. He described the surgeon’s evidence as illogical and contrived, noting his willingness to pursue higher speed despite prior instruction.
The judgment also criticized the claimant’s expert, who lacked relevant experience in snowmobile collision reconstruction, favoring the reliability and local knowledge of McLaren’s instructed expert instead.
Moreover, the claimant’s post‑accident text messages—such as offering to pay for the damaged snowmobile and referring to the incident as “my error and my responsibility”—were cited as evidence of his acknowledgment of fault.
The Court accepted that Dr Cannestra initially told the guides it was his mistake, undermining his later allegations of negligence.
The final judgment, handed down on 18 July 2025, affirms that operators can meet their duty of care through proper supervision and instruction, even in inherently risky adventures.
It also highlights the critical importance of using experts with relevant expertise and jurisdictional familiarity, particularly in cross-border litigation contexts.
