The Supreme Court yesterday upheld an appeal by two travel companies against a High Court award of almost £64,000 damages to a woman who sustained serious injuries when her tour bus was stoned while travelling through Bethlehem. The three-judge court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, dismissed a High Court order directing the payment of almost £64,000 damages and costs to Ms Marion McKenna by Best Travel Ltd, trading as Cypriana Holidays, and Chudleigh Ltd, trading as the Holiday Shop, of Wicklow Street, Dublin.
The High Court had put a stay on the payment of damages pending the outcome of the companies' appeal.
Ms McKenna, South Circular Road, Dublin, was struck in the face by a stone which came through the window of a tour bus in which she was travelling through Bethlehem in August 1990.
She was admitted to a medical centre in Israel. She had lost several teeth and injuries including a deep laceration of the upper and lower lips and laceration of the upper and lower gums.
Ms McKenna claimed she and her sister had booked a holiday in Cyprus in August 1990 with Cypriana Holidays, with an add-on mini-cruise to the Holy Land through the Holiday Shop branch at Wicklow Street, Dublin.
She said she chose her holiday from a Cypriana Holidays brochure which contained details of a mini-cruise to Egypt and Israel. She was told the cruise was bookable only from Cyprus and she duly booked it on arrival there.
The cruise also involved a coach tour in Israel and while she was on the coach close to Bethlehem, a stone was thrown through the window of the driver's door and struck her on the mouth.
She initiated proceedings to recover damages on the grounds of breach of duty, breach of contract and negligence by Best Travel and Chudleigh Ltd.
Last January the High Court found there had been no breach of contract on the part of either company, but found that both companies were negligent.
The court said there was contributory negligence by Ms McKenna. Both companies appealed the decision.
Delivering judgment on that appeal yesterday, Mr Justice Barron said the sole issue involved was whether Ms McKenna should have been warned about the state of unrest which then existed in and around Bethlehem. He said the High Court had found such duty was owed having regard to the then existing political situation in the area in Israel through which Ms McKenna would be travelling and where the incident occurred.
There was tension and confrontation between the residents of the area and the security forces controlling it and this was heightened by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in early August 1990.
The judge said that while ultimate responsibility for safety of tourists must lie with the tour operator, the travel agency must also familiarise itself with the conditions likely to be met by tourists. He said while the mini-cruise was not booked through the agent, the Holiday Shop, it was aware Ms McKenna and her sister intended to travel on it and its duty of care was the same as if the tour had been booked through it.
The duty of care arose from the proximity created by the contractual relationship, Mr Justice Barron said. He said the duty extended to all matters concerning tourists' safety, well-being and comfort which should be known to the service providers but not to the tourists.
Tourists' standard of knowledge about their choice of destination should be that which might be expected from advertisements or news items, he said.
He said the obligation of the travel agency and the tour operator stopped at taking all reasonable steps to ensure the safety and well-being of their customers. The fact of unrest in certain parts of Israel in August 1990 was well known and a tour operator was entitled to assume its customers had such knowledge.
The judge said the test was what information a reasonably prudent tour operator exercising reasonable care would consider necessary to impart to customers travelling with it. There was evidence that large numbers of tour buses had been bringing tourists to Bethlehem daily without incident.
He said the best case for Ms McKenna was the fact there was an incident involving a tourist nine months earlier. But that did not warrant any particular knowledge of danger which must be passed on to a tourist, who must be presumed to be aware of the general conditions in their holiday destination.
The judge said he was allowing the appeal and dismissing Ms McKenna's claim. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, and Mr Justice Keane said they agreed with the decision and granted costs to the defendants.