LTourists who take out a “package travel” contract benefit from a protective regime: the organizer is considered fully liable for the poor performance of the services sold. Provided, however, that this poor execution is not attributable to them, as the following case reminds us.
In 2015, Mr. X, 64, manager of an equestrian center, booked a stay at Club Med Cancun (Mexico), for himself, his wife and their son. On August 29, 2015, he saw a 2.50 meter crocodile in the water of the lagoon near the Club. To film it, he approaches the barrier that encloses the body of water, where a sign indicates, in three languages, “Be careful, do not cross the barrier, do not feed the crocodiles, do not attack the crocodiles “.
While filming the reptile using a GoPro camera attached to a pole, two cameras attached to his belt fall into the water. He recovers one with his pole. To catch the other, he crouched down and reached through the barrier. The crocodile bites him.
Mr. X was taken to Cancun hospital where he underwent a hand operation, after paying 2,500 euros. He then made an accident report to the Marsh company, which then insured Club Med. A few months later, the latter offers him 680 euros, which he refuses. He summons Club Med and Marsh before the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance (Hauts-de-Seine). He claims some 115,000 euros from them (including 53,500 for loss of professional earnings).
€115,000
Mr. X invokes the article L 211-16 of tourism code, according to which the organizer of a package tour is “fully responsible » the proper performance of the obligations resulting from the contract. He asks that Club Med be held responsible for his bite. He blames her for having “trivialized » the presence of crocodiles, calling them“harmless », and by organizing water skiing activities in the lagoon.
Club Med replies that its accident finds its “exclusive cause” in the fact that he crossed the barrier, and so “ violated the safety instructions “. Yet, he says, this client, given his age and profession, should have been ” aware of the safety and caution measures to be observed with animals, whose reactions are unpredictable. The organizer ensures that this “recklessness” exonerates him of all liability.
The court agrees with him, and the Versailles Court of Appeal, seized by Mr. X, confirms his judgmentMay 19 (2022). She specifies that he cannot put his fault on the staff of the hotel, according to whom the crocodiles are harmless: ” He could not legitimately think that he could safely plunge his arm into the lagoon. (…) given the clear message on the sign. » Such actionn “shows a lack of caution on the part of an adult expected to act reasonably”. The court dismissed Mr. X’s claims. As the nursery rhyme sings: “Ah crocodiles… let’s not talk about them anymore! »