Pena v. Sita World Travel, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 1978 No. Civ. 53054Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that travel agencies providing tour services are not subject to strict liability in tort, and that a travel agency has no legal duty to warn a client of another party's liability disclaimer clause.

Issues

Whether a travel agency can be held strictly liable in tort for injuries sustained during a tour.
Whether a travel agency has a duty to indemnify a client for failing to warn of a third party's liability disclaimer.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The courts of this state have repeatedly refused to extend this doctrine to the sale of services such as the guidance of others in their economic, financial, or personal affairs.”

“Defendant travel agencies in selecting and coordinating transportation, accommodations, and meals for prospective travelers were clearly performing a service”

“But a travel agency has no duty to warn of another’s disclaimer clause and the doctrine is not applicable here.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Plaintiff Grace Pena appeals an order dismissing her 19th and 20th causes of action pursuant to the sustaining of defendants’ demurrers thereto. We affirm the dismissal order.

[644]

In the summer of 1975, plaintiff went on a 10-day prepaid tour of Mexico. The tour had been arranged by Sita World Travel, Inc. (Sita) and sold to plaintiff by United Associated Tour and Travel Service (United), which allegedly remitted some of the payment to Sita. While traveling through Mexico, plaintiff was injured when a bus in which she was riding overturned. As a result of said injury, plaintiff and three other injured passengers filed suit against Sita, United, and the Automobile Club of Southern California, which had sold the tour to some of the other plaintiffs. The complaint in its second amended form set forth twenty causes of action, five per plaintiff, with plaintiff Grace Pena alleging: (16) negligence in the selection of the transportation to be used in Mexico, and in defendants’ failure to warn of a Mexican law limiting recovery of damages in accidents such as the one at bench; (17) and (18) intentional misrepresentations as to the safety of the transportation selected; (19) strict liability in tort; and (20) indemnification from United for failure to warn of Sita’s disclaimer clause. General demurrers were sustained as to the 19th and 20th causes of action and plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the 16th, 17th, and 18th causes of action. This appeal is taken from the ensuing dismissal of plaintiff’s 19th and 20th causes of action.

Discussion

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and absent clear error or abuse of discretion by the trial court, the order of dismissal following the sustaining of the demurrer will be affirmed on appeal.

(Banerian

O’Malley

(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 610-11 [116 Cal.Rptr. 919].)

Strict Liability.

Pena v. Sita World Travel, Inc.

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief