applies regardless of whether the obligations are fulfilled by the travel agent or by other service providers18. Regarding the claims of the accident victim’s successors attributable to the travel agency, their claims are founded on tortious grounds rather than contractual grounds19. This is an objective liability that also covers “adventure” trips, trips involving particular risks, or even sporting activities. The Cour de Cassation, in a decision dated May 4, 201220, upheld the strict liability of Club Méditerranée after a client was injured in a canoe accident during a “Club Med package” holiday. The brochure listed numerous activities, including “children and teen clubs, sailing, Club fitness and Aquagym, as well as tennis and about fifteen activities, including, in free practice, canoeing.”The Court found that the combination of these services constituted a “package” under the Tourism Code, making Club Méditerranée strictly liable for the accident, unless it could prove the fault was due to the victim or an unforeseeable third party, which was not the case here. where she was staying during a trip organised in Andorra by the Tourisme Verney agency. She sued the travel agency for damages resulting from this accident. The lower court rejected her claim, stating the agency only had an obligation of means (not result) regarding her personal movements and that she had to prove fault or a defect. However, the Cour de Cassation overturned this decision, ruling that the travel agency is strictly liable for fulfilling contractual obligations unless it proves the victim’s fault, an unforeseeable third-party act, or force majeure. The case was sent back to a different appellate court for reconsideration. 18 Cour de Cassation, Civ. 1, 13 December 2005, 03-17.897. The case concerns Paul X, who died during a ski touring trip organised by the company Allibert after falling into a crevasse. His widow and daughter sued Allibert for liability. The Court of Appeal had rejected their claim, stating that the mountain guide had no fault and was only bound by an obligation of means. However, the French Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that under Article 23 of the Law of 13 July 1992, the travel agency is strictly liable for the proper execution of the contract, regardless of whether the obligations are performed by itself or by other service providers. The ruling emphasises the tour operator’s strict liability even when third parties, such as a high-mountain guide, provide services. The case was subsequently remitted to the Court of Appeal of Lyon for further proceedings. 19 Cour de Cassation, 10 April 2008, n° 07-13.520. The case concerns the liability of the travel agency Allibert after Paul X... died in a ski touring accident when he fell into a crevasse. His widow and daughter (the “consorts X...”) sought damages, alleging that Allibert breached an “obligation de sécurité de résultat” (obligation of result concerning safety). The case underscores the distinction between contractual and tortious liability, especially regarding claims by “victimes par ricochet” (indirect victims) due to a contractual breach. The plaintiffs argued that Allibert had a duty to ensure participant safety, and any failure to do so constituted a breach, highlighting the expected standard of care for tour operators in adventure activities. They can invoke any contractual breach by the debtor (Allibert) if it caused them damage, without requiring additional proof. The plaintiffs maintain that both direct and indirect victims can assert these rights. However, the Cour de Cassation emphasises that indirect victims of an accident occurring during the performance of a contract must base their claims on tort liability (délituel) rather than contractual liability. The Court confirmed that the indirect victims (consorts X...) had limited their lawsuit solely to contractual grounds, which justified the lower court’s decision. This ruling emphasises the distinction between contractual and tortious liability in French civil law, highlighting that indirect victims must rely on tort law. 20 Cour de Cassation, Civ. 1, 4 May 2012, no. 10-18.503. 204 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==