Sustainable Tourism Law

724 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW service providers, and/or any other persons, depending on the circumstances of each case, including the specific terms of a travel service contract, and the principal/agency relationship between the travel agent and the tourist. It goes without saying that the following common law principles are equally applicable: (a) vicarious liability applicable when imposing liability on employer or person granting authority to those being primarily negligent in causing the loss, damage or injury; and (b) contributory negligence on the part of the injured 97 . The most common are personal injuries suffered during the tour as a result of negligence of tour operators, as in Chea KamWing above, where liabilities for damages on all defendants (organising travel agent, tour operator and the employer of the driver) were joint and several. In Ma Yong Mei v Cheng Muk Lam 98 , the plaintiff who sustained an injury to her right eye while playing water volleyball in a resort in Malaysia, also successfully claimed for damages against the wrongdoer, a friend and fellow traveller. More unusual are cases such as Musharaf Din v Amercian Airlines & Anor 99 . The claimant traveller purchased an air ticket from Hong Kong to Montreal from the 2 nd respondent, a travel agent. The 2 nd respondent, in advising the claimant to take a slight detour by stopping over at Dallas for less than 6 hours to save sector fares, said to the claimant that no visa was required for the transit. The claimant duly purchased the tickets as advised, but was challenged by the American Immigration when he landed at Dallas and ultimately returned to Hong Kong without en route to Montreal. The High Court of Hong Kong held that, the 2 nd defendant as an agent being entrusted with the task of procuring a passage from Hong Kong to Montreal for the claimant as principal, a duty of care had arisen to secure a trouble-free passage for the claimant, which includes giving advice with reasonable care and skill on the need of a visa 100 . The 2 nd respondent was found liable for the price of the air ticket together with the additional accommodation expenses. If the travel contract is frustrated by force majeure, the remedy is governed by sections 16 and 17 of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) 97 See also, section 21 of Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Chapter 23), Laws of Hong Kong. 98 (unreported) DCPI 631A/2012 and DCPI 631/2012, 4 December 2015. 99 [1989] 1 HKC 341, on appeal from the Small Claims Tribunal. 100 Ibid, at 345E-G and 346C-F.