The Times this weekend wrote about the tragic case of an Inghams customer who was left paralysed from the chest down after a snowmobile accident on an excursion booked through her Inghams rep. I don’t want to comment on this individual case, rather a couple of the quotes attributed to lawyers in the piece.
Inghams are being sued for £300,000, but Inghams are defending the claim on the basis that they are not liable for excursions sold in resort. That’s the way the law stands. But, according to Paul McClorry, a travel expert with the law firm Pannone:
“Tour operators that employ these methods of selling excursions should not be allowed to continue hiding behind a legal technicality. The law in this area needs to be amended, as it does not provide fair protection to consumers.”
A technicality? It’s the law. It’s no more a technicality than the law that prohibits me from doing more than 70mph on the motorway. It’s funny how when lawyers don’t like a certain aspect of the law they deem it to be a “technicality“. If you don’t like the law then blame the law, don’t blame the operators who are operating within it and wrongly claim they are “hiding“.
Clive Garner, of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, came up with something equally ridiculous:
“Every year, dozens of people are injured as a result of excursions sold by reps in resorts, and in most cases the law does not allow them to claim. Tour operators routinely receive commission from selling excursions. If they’re profiting, it’s only right that they bear legal responsibility when things go wrong.”
So just because someone is profiting that makes them liable? If I go into a travel agent and book a flight that subsequently crashes due to a pilot error, is that the liability of the airline who recruited and trained the pilot, or the travel agent who sold the ticket? In Mr Garner’s world we should blame the travel agent.
Obviously, it’s a tricky one because different countries are involved and trying to prosecute in a foreign country is a complex business. However, tour operators are held responsible for enough things they have little controls or jurisdiction over, such as the hygiene and safety in the hotels they sell. Adding excursions to this would be a step too far.
If this ruling, or a similar one being taken out against First Choice, go against the operator it will have severe implications for the industry. It would push operators’ insurance up and make it very difficult for companies to sell excursions. It should be the responsibility of whoever is taking the excursion to ensure the safety of their clients, not the operator.
If the law was changed so those liable were the people selling the trips, rather than those running them, would that really benefit the consumer? It would just mean that the people who were really vital to your safety were abdicated of responsibility.
{ 0 comments }
