When dealing with food poisoning on a cruise, it is vital to establish which laws apply to both the travel agent and the cruise line21. It must be assessed based on the nature and extent of the obligations of the various service providers whose contribution the agent has obtained, and it cannot exceed the level determined for the local service provider in accordance with local law circumstances22. Regarding the nature and scope of liability, it is not of a subsidiary but of a primary character. Specifically, the failure of the service provider does not qualify as an exonerating circumstance under force majeure, as the agent should constantly assess the solvency of its service providers23. However, in cases where the travel agent solely limits itself to the reservation or issuance of airline tickets or other transport documents on a regular line, by way of exception, the principle of strict liability does not apply, and liability can only be established in the event of proven fault24. 21 Civ. 1, 15 December 2011, no. 10-10.585. This case concerns a cruise purchased by Mme X from Sedan Leclerc Voyages, during which she and three family members suffered gastroenteritis, allegedly caused by food provided on the cruise. Mme X sued the travel agency and its insurer for reimbursement and damages, who in turn sought a guarantee from the cruise operator, Costa Crociere. The main legal question was whether the travel agency and cruise operator were liable under the law regulating package tours (Law No. 92-645 of 13 July 1992) or maritime transport (Law No. 66-420 of 18 June 1966). The court ruled that the travel agency was liable under the package tour law, as stipulated in the contract, and that the cruise operator was liable under maritime law for failing to prove an exonerating cause for the illness. Both the principal and incidental appeals were dismissed. The travel agency and its insurer were ordered to pay Mme X €10,000 in damages, and Costa Crociere was required to guarantee these amounts. 22 Cour de Cassation, Civ. 1, 11 March 2009, n° 07-21.639. The case concerns a tourist contract for a trip to Tunisia, during which an accident caused deaths and injuries. The victims’ families sued the travel agency (Vacances Carrefour) and its insurer for contractual liability, separate from breach of contract. The Versailles Court of Appeal applied Tunisian law to determine compensation for the French victims, limiting the indemnities accordingly, and also rejected the insurer MACIF’s subrogation claim based on Tunisian law. The Cour de cassation partly overturned this decision, ruling that the agency’s contractual liability is governed by French law (the law of the contract), not by the law of the place of the accident (Tunisian law), as specified in article 23 of the law of 13 July 1992. The insurer’s right to subrogation is governed by the law applicable to the insurance contract (French law), not by the law of the place of the accident, in accordance with Article 13 of the Rome Convention of 1980. The case was remanded to the Versailles Court of Appeal for reconsideration under French law regarding these issues. 23 Cour de Cassation. Civ. 1, 20 December 2012, No. 11-27.184. The case concerns Mme X, who purchased a travel package from Voyage Conseil Bourgogne (VCB) for a trip to New York. Despite having paid VCB for the package, which included hotel accommodation, the hotel (Affinia Manhattan) later charged Mme X’s bank card directly because the tour operator (Chase International) failed to settle the hotel’s account. Mme X sought reimbursement from VCB. The court held VCB strictly liable under Article L. 211-16 of the French Tourism Code for the proper execution of the contract, rejecting VCB’s argument that the failure of Chase International was a force majeure event. The court found that VCB could not shift responsibility to its subcontractors and was responsible for ensuring their solvency. The court also rejected VCB’s argument that Mme X was at fault for not contesting the unauthorised hotel charge in time, as this argument was raised too late in the proceedings. The Cour de cassation rejected VCB’s appeal, confirmed VCB’s liability, and ordered VCB to reimburse Mme X for the hotel charge and related fees. 24 Cour de Cassation Civ. 1, 12 June 2012, n° 10-26,328. The case stems from a lower court’s ruling that Go Voyages was liable for failing to inform clients, M. X, about specific airline requirements for a pilgrimage to Mecca, which resulted in their denied boarding and financial losses. The Cour de Cassation ultimately overturned the lower 205 AN UNDETERMINED FALL AT THE AIRPORT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==