overturned the initial judgment and held the travel agency fully liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, applying the strict liability provisions outlined in the French Tourism Code. Key issues included the interpretation of the travel agency’s strict liability (responsabilité de plein droit), the burden of proof required to establish exonerating circumstances, and the assessment of various damages. The court notably rejected claims for certain professional and emotional damages due to a lack of proof while confirming the applicability of international conventions on air transport liability. II. CASE BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mr. Y, a lawyer, purchased a package tour to Morocco from Kalika Voyages, a travel agency specialising in golf competitions, for the dates of January 25 to February 2, 2009. The package included air transport and airport transfers. On February 2, 2009, during his return journey, Mr. Y fell at an airport in Morocco and sustained an ankle fracture. The traveller and his professional company, CO.FE.DE, now in liquidation, sued Kalika Voyages for damages related to his health insurance (AG2R Prévoyance), social security, and the travel assistance company Mondial Assistance/AWP Europe. In the first instance2, the Judge, on October 11, 2018, ruled that the circumstances of the accident had not been established and that the traveller had failed to prove a contractual breach by the organiser or its service providers. Consequently, all claims for indemnification were rejected. The Versailles Court of Appeal, on March 19, 2020, overturned the trial court’s finding that the accident circumstances had not been established and that the traveller had failed to prove a breach. However, it confirmed other dispositions, condemning the traveller and his company for appeal costs. On February 16, 2022, the Cour de cassation, France’s highest court, quashed and annulled the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal, dated March 19, 2020, in its entirety. The French supreme court explicitly stated that the fall occurred “during the execution of a service provided for in the package,” which engaged the strict liability of the travel agency. It held that the agency could only be exonerated by proving the “fault of the buyer, the act of a third party, or force 2 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre. 194 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==