providers included in the package. The decree of 14 June 1982, concerning the general terms and conditions of sale that govern the relationship between travel agencies and their clients, stipulated in article 1 (3) that the travel agent: “He is responsible for the organisation of the trip or stay and is responsible for its proper execution, except in cases of force majeure, unforeseeable circumstances or actions of third parties not involved in the provision of the services provided for in the travel contract.” Relying on this provision, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) recognised that a travel agency, having entered into a contract with a customer for an organised trip to Greece, is directly liable for the same obligations as the various service providers it engaged to perform its contract. It also held that the agency must compensate its customer for the loss of her luggage during transportation11. The Cour de Cassation reaffirmed its stance in two subsequent rulings. It held that Sotair was held to the same liability as the hotelier it had engaged for a contract related to an organised trip concluded with a client12. It also held that a travel agent, Marmara, is liable in the same way as the various service providers it employs for the contract it finalises with its clients, and that it must answer13. 11 Cassation, 10 mai 1989, Sté Voyages-Conseil c/Madame Joulie. 12 5 Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 1, du 15 janvier 1991, 89-16.370. Around 11:30 p.m., 9-year-old Franck X... injured his eye after falling into thorny plants in a hotel garden in Majorca during a holiday organised by Sotair. His parents sued the hotel operators and Sotair for compensation due to the after-effects of the accident. Sotair argued that their obligation to ensure safety did not extend to supervising the actions of minors, asserting that parents alone bear that responsibility. However, the Versailles Court of Appeal found the hotel operators at fault for placing entertainment in a dangerous area filled with thorny plants, highlighting that Sotair had promoted the hotel’s activities without proper warnings. The court also found that the hotel was negligent for placing a nighttime activity area near dangerous plants and that Sotair was responsible for promoting these activities without warning against children’s participation. The court rejected Sotair’s appeal and upheld the hotel’s liability. It then clarifies the obligation of security imposed on travel agents: in addition to a general duty to ensure the smooth running of the trip, the agent must also adhere to a security obligation, traditionally seen as a duty of means, but in the case of tourist packages, it has almost become a duty of result for the judge. 13 Cour de cassation, Civ. 1, du 5 février 1991, 89-15.321. In the appealed judgment (Paris, 28 March 1989), Miss X, who had been injured during a tourist trip to Turkey organised by the Marmara company, requested an advance payment, alleging that the bus driver was at fault, having driven carelessly. The trial judge granted the request, stating that the travel agency had failed in its duty of supervision by hiring a negligent driver and thus assumed liability. Marmara challenged the decision, arguing that there had been no specific fault in the choice of the carrier and that the driver was qualified and insured. However, the Court of Appeal noted that Marmara’s booking receipt indicated that the company was responsible for the actions of its service providers. As a result, the court found Marmara’s liability justified due to the driver’s negligence, and the Cour de Cassation upheld the judgment. 202 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==