Burden of proof in a case of strict liability for the organiser: the disappearance of a mother and daughter during a canoe trip in Mauritius Carlos Torres1 I. Introduction. – II. Burden of proof and strict liability. The article examines a 7 January 2026 judgment of the First Civil Chamber of the French Cour de cassation concerning the strict liability of a travel organiser for a fatal accident during a canoe outing at a Mauritian hotel included in a package tour. A mother had contracted with the Selectour travel agency for a package organised by Rev’Vacances, covering a stay at the “Le Mauricia” hotel for herself and her two children; during the trip, she and her daughter disappeared while canoeing at another hotel, “Le Paradis,” where they had gone at the end of their stay. Their surviving relatives sued the organiser, hotel companies, and insurers, invoking Article 23 of Law no. 92‑645 (later Article L. 211‑17 of the Code du tourisme), which establishes the organiser’s strict liability for the proper performance of contractual services, with limited grounds for exoneration. The Paris Court of Appeal had rejected Selectour’s liability, construing the package narrowly as covering only “Le Mauricia” and treating the stay at “Le Paradis” and the canoeing activity as non‑contractual, based on price differences, distinct brochures, and the absence of proof that the traveller held a “Beachcomber card” or had formally requested a hotel change. The Cour de cassation held that this reasoning unlawfully reversed the burden of proof: where damage occurs during the contractual travel period, it is for the organiser, not the traveller or heirs, to prove that the harmful activity was not included in the contract if it wishes to escape strict liability, pursuant to Article 1315 of the Civil Code and Article 23 of Law no. 92‑645. The Court therefore partially quashed the appellate judgment, remitted the case against Selectour to the Versailles Court of Appeal, removed the Mauritian hotel companies from the proceedings, and ordered costs and a payment under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Doctrinally, the decision strengthens the allocation of the burden of proof in favour of travellers within the strict liability regime applicable to package travel organisers. DOI 10.60559/ijtthl2026-006 1 Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism and Hotel Studies, email: carlos.torres@eshte.pt
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==