Story Line One
Malcolm books a package holiday in Spain for himself, his wife, and his 11-year-old son, Jason, with a tour operator, Groovy Holidays.
The holiday for August 1999 included 14 nights’ accommodation at the Good Memories Hotel.
On the second day of the holiday, Jason is getting into one of the hotel lifts on his own.
The lift was three-sided. Jason’s hand became stuck in the lift door with the result that he suffered nasty injuries.
Malcolm and Julie make a claim on behalf of Jason against Groovy Holidays, alleging negligence on the part of the hotel.
It is particularly claimed that the lift did not comply with British standards although it is agreed that the lift did actually comply with local standards.
Groovy Holidays deny liability.
Question 1
Does English law require English standards to be applied to overseas hotels?
Question 2
Is Groovy Holidays liable?
Question 3
Is it safe for Groovy Holidays to make a without prejudice offer of settlement without the issue of proceedings or without any court order evidencing settlement?
Answers
Question one: No – the requirement is for the exercise of reasonable care, and subject to the local standards, compliance with local standards will be evidence of the exercise of reasonable care.
Question two: No – provided that Groovy Holidays can show that the hotel complied with local standards and that the standards were reasonable.
Question three: No – Jason is a minor and, to be binding, settlement of minors’ claims requires the approval of the court.
Story Line Two
Martin and Jenny decide to take an expensive two-week Caribbean cruise in order to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary.
They book with a cruise operator – Cautious Cruising – and as part of the arrangements, fly to Miami for embarkation onto the ship.
They board the ship safely but their luggage fails to arrive with them.
It becomes clear that the airline has mislaid the luggage although some days later the luggage does finally arrive in Miami. Cautious Cruising had told Martin and Jenny that their luggage should simply be labelled Miami but there was nothing on the suitcases to indicate what cruise ship they were on. Cautious Cruising make no effort to find the luggage and instead charge Martin and Jenny for replacement clothes which they have to purchase.
At the time of booking, Martin and Jenny had stressed to Cautious Cruising that the purpose of the holiday was to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary.
They do not recover their luggage until they return to Miami for the homeward flight.
Martin and Jenny claim against Cautious Cruising who deny all liability, other than for the amount of compensation which falls within the limits set out in the Warsaw Convention, for delay in the carriage of their luggage.
Question 1
Is Cautious Cruising entitled to take advantage of the Warsaw Convention limits?
Question 2
Do Martin and Jenny have claims other than in respect of the delay of delivery of the luggage?
Question 3
Is there any significance in the fact that the holiday was to celebrate Martin and Jenny’s 25th wedding anniversary?
Answers
Question one: Yes, provided that its booking conditions expressly refer to the Warsaw Convention limits and provided that Martin and Jenny’s claim can be said to be limited to the delay in delivery of their luggage (see question 2).
Question two: Yes, in respect of Cautious Cruising’s failure to provide proper assistance to locate the luggage and potentially in respect of Cautious Cruising’s failure to advise that luggage should be marked by reference to the particular cruise ship.
Question three: Yes – it will lead to Martin and Jenny being able to claim increased amounts of compensation for loss of enjoyment.