Inghams awaits outcome of skidoo accident case

Inghams faces an anxious wait to see if its owner will be held liable for a skidoo accident that left a woman wheelchair-bound for life.

The case was brought against the ski operator’s owner, Hotelplan, by Emma Moore following a skidoo excursion in January 2007 at the Passo Tonale ski resort in Italy.
Moore had been on the excursion when she lost control of the skidoo as the trip came to an end, crashing into a car park and severing her spinal cord.

As both sets of barristers this week made their final submissions to Justice Owen at the High Court in London, Inghams’ defence barrister, Sarah Prager, argued that the operator could not be held responsible for problems which occurred on the excursion.

She argued that while the tour operator accepted liability for the components of the package holiday it sold, the trip was not a part of the package as Moore did not book a place on it until she arrived in the resort.

She added: “The rules (of the Package Travel Directive) are inserted into the package holiday for a reason and that reason does not cover arrangements subsequently made in resort.”

Prager said that while Inghams listed skidoo trips in its brochure as one of the resort’s attractions, bars and restaurants were also featured in the same list and a consumer would not hold Inghams responsible for a bad meal in resort should they have one.

On the day of the excursion, Inghams rep Jane Hodges had handed out waiver forms when the group arrived at the skidoos, but Prager said Hodges had done this simply to help skidoo operator Adriano Tantera.

Prager said Inghams did not have waiver forms to cover the trip and did not assume any liability for it.

The barrister added that once on the trip, Tantera had given full instructions on the use of the skidoo, and that the brakes had been proven to be working both immediately before and after the crash.

Prager suggested the crash had instead been caused by human error, adding: “For some reason, which we will never know, she (Moore) got into a panic, she kept pulling on the accelerator and got into trouble.”

Prager added that while Moore did know about the emergency cut-off switch, she was too panicked to use it, and even if she had it would not necessarily have stopped the skidoo in time.

However, Moore’s barrister Michael McParland argued the ski operator was culpable for the excursion as the ski operator’s rep, Jane Hodges, handed out indemnity forms that she insisted customers sign.

He said although these were Tantera’s own forms, Hodges was handing them out as she did not have any Inghams indemnity forms available.

He also dismissed claims made by Prager that since the excursion was sold in resort outside of the package, Inghams was not culpable for any mishaps which occurred on it.

McParland said Tantera referred to the group as “Inghams’ customers” while even Hodges described it as an Inghams trip, adding: “Miss Hodges said Mr Tantera was running the skidoo expeditions on behalf of Inghams.

“They (Inghams) were as much a part of this business venture as Mr Tantera; in fact, it was their business venture.”

McParland blamed the crash on a brake failure and claimed Tantera failed to demonstrate to the group the emergency engine cut-off button.

He added: “She (Moore) was pulling this brake, found it wasn’t working and because of a lack of instruction she could not do anything to help herself.

“The failure to give instructions on the emergency cut-off button was in fact a failure in duty by Mr Tantera.”

McParland argued that had Moore been able to use the switch, it could have stopped the skidoo in time.

The judge is expected to announce his decision within the next two weeks.