William and all of his family go on a summer skiing holiday with On Piste Tours to the French Alps.
The flights and accommodation are all included in the price, as is the use of various local sport and leisure facilities, including a “dry toboggan run” down the nearby mountain.
The toboggan run has two tracks – a fast track and a slow track.
There is a sign at the start of the fast track indicating that tobogganists use it at their own risk, and excluding liability for any injury sustained by users.
The sign also states that, for their own safety, tobogganists should always brake when taking corners on the run.
William’s family takes the slow track but William decides to try the fast track, and, in addition, decides he will not brake whatever happens.
He comes off his toboggan, sustaining fairly serious skin injuries, with the result he spends half his holiday in hospital.
Four weeks later, the wounds have not healed and William’s doctor points out that the injury has exacerbated an existing skin condition from which William suffers.
William claims against On Piste Tours for his injuries, and his wife claims for loss of enjoyment suffered during the holiday.
She has had to take full charge of the children during the holiday while William was in hospital.
Question 1: Will On Piste Tours have any liability to William for his initial injuries?
Question 2: Will On Piste Tours have any liability to William for the exacerbation of his skin condition?
Question 3: Will On Piste Tours have any liability to William’s wide for her claim for loss of enjoyment of the holiday?
Question one: Yes, if the fast track of the toboggan was unsafe even if used according to the instructions given. Even then, however, any damages would probably be reduced because William ignored the warning about braking.
Question two: Not unless William had specifically informed On Piste Tours of his pre-existing condition.
Question three: Yes, if On Piste Tours has liability for William’s initial injuries.
HIGH-OCTANE Tours organise an exclusive trip to see the Monaco Grand Prix.
Its brochure promises a flight to Monaco in a “private jet” and an also exclusive view of the race from “the waterfront”.
The latter of which is to be facilitated by the hiring of a large motor yacht and mooring berth from which the holidaymakers are able to see the cars as they race along the front.
The package does not include any food or drink.
The holidaymakers are disappointed when their “private jet” is in fact a charter flight with other tourists.
But they are then told by High-Octane Tours that the “private jet” had to be taken out of service unexpectedly due to a completely unforeseeable malfunction that had rendered it unsafe to use.
The holidaymakers are then doubly disappointed because their view of the actual race is spoilt when a large boat moors right next to their yacht, obscuring much of the “exclusive view”.
The final straw of the day came that evening. In an attempt to salvage the day they were taken to dine out at an extremely expensive restaurant.
However, things did not get any better here. They are served undercooked meat and also threatened with violence by the manager when they refuse to pay the bill.
On the return from their unfortunate trip, they decide to sue High-Octane Tours for the various mishaps.
Do the holidaymakers have a claim against High-Octane Tours in respect of the failure to provide the private jet?
Do the holidaymakers have a claim against High-Octane Tours in respect of the failure to provide a proper view of the race?
Do the holidaymakers have a claim against High-Octane Tours for their experiences at the restaurant?
Question one: No, provided that the malfunction which took the jet out of service was entirely unforeseeable as High-Octane Tours claims.
Question two: Probably, but this will depend upon whether the mooring of the large boat was something which could have been foreseen by High-Octane.
Question three: Unlikely, unless High-Octane Tours had specifically recommended the restaurant to them.
This is a community-moderated forum.
All post are the individual views of the respective commenter and are not the expressed views of Travel Weekly.
By posting your comments you agree to accept our Terms & Conditions.