X v Kuoni Travel Ltd [2021] UKSC 34 (30 July 2021)
Citation:X v Kuoni Travel Ltd [2021] UKSC 34 (30 July 2021).
Subjects invoked: 12. 'Employment'.80. 'Travel Agents'.
Rule of thumb:If an employee partakes in a random act of violence is the employer still vicariously liable? No. Random acts of violence are not covered. However, all hoteliers are expected to show patrons to their rooms properly, and if they do not do so, then they will be held liable.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subjects of employment law and travel agents’ liability.
X was a lady who had booked a luxury package holiday to Sri Lanka with Kuoni travel-agents/holiday makers. Kuoni specialise in providing luxury holidays in exotic location. X’s package with Kuoni included return flights, transport to and from hotel, and 15 nights all-inclusive in the luxury ‘Club Benota’ hotel. One evening X was making her way through the hotel. An employee, who was employed as an electrician in the hotel, called N, stated that he had to show X another way to her room. N then lured X into a room where N assaulted X and also raped her. X raised a case against Kuoni for breach of their duties as a reasonable travel agent. Kuoni refused to provide X with the compensation for this and so the matter went to Court.
This case invoked the principle of vicarious liability, as well as interpretation of travel agency contracts & travel agents’ obligation under the EU travel agents’ directive and UK travel agency regulations.
Vicarious liability means that any time one person acts as an instructor and gives such close instructions to another person that they are deemed as a matter of law to control them, then the instructor is liable for anything this person does related to their close instructions. Kuoni argued that what had been done by N to X was not remotely close to the instructions which they had provided N with. They had instructed N only to be an electrician and not interact with hotel patrons. Kuoni argued that N completely abdicated his instructions and duties and undertook an action which was nowhere near his instructions, and so they argued that N was so far from his work instruction that vicarious liability did not apply in this circumstance. Kuoni therefore argued they were not liable, and this was just a senseless crime done by someone far removed from their job. X argued that this was a clear breach of both contract and the Travel Agents’ Directive. X argued that under the contract and under the EU Travel Directive Kuoni were liable to provide a holiday to a reasonable standard. X argued that directing someone to their book room was part of the reasonable duty of the holiday operator. Kuoni argued that the hotel grossly failed in their duty to do this properly, and this made them liable both under contract and under the travel agent directive.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of X. The Court affirmed that under contract and the EU travel directive travel agents have a broad duty to provide a hotel and holiday to a reasonable standard. They argued that showing someone to their room fell under the duties required under both contract and the EU Travel directives, even if not expressly referred to. The Court held that Kuoni had failed to properly perform this room escorting duty they had towards patrons, this led to X being injured, and they were liable for the damages caused by this. The Court further explained that the principle of vicarious liability did not apply in this matter. The Court affirmed that this case invoked principles – patron room escorting - which were particular to the specialist subject of Travel Agents’ liability, rather than any underlying principles from the common law of partnership. In short, the particular principle of the reasonable duty of a travel agent to show someone to their room applied, rather than the general common law of principle of vicarious liability.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘N’s guiding Mrs X from one part of the hotel to another clearly fell within the scope of the obligations undertaken by Kuoni under its package travel contract with Mr and Mrs X’, Lord Lloyd Jones at 47
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.