Beware of blasé attitude to local travel threats

CORPORATES’
nonchalant attitude
toward local safety
threats could land them –
and their TMCs – in
hot water.
Recent events, such as
the unrest in Tshwane and
the US terror alert issued
in South Africa (terrorist
groups allegedly planning
to carry out attacks
in places where US
citizens congregate), have
highlighted the issue.
Vanessa Krook,
BCD Travel’s manager
of marketing,
communications and
supplier relations, says
consultants at BCD
warned their corporate
clients about the alerts
and the potential threats
they posed but did not
get much reaction from
travellers.
“Corporates are
generally more concerned
with incidents that take
place abroad rather than
alerts affecting local
travel,” she says.
GBTA chairman, Howard
Stephens, agrees and
says the travel manager
will evaluate whether
the alert pertains to
the destination that
the traveller is visiting
before issuing a warning
themselves.
“Overall, though,
corporates generally don’t
do anything specific with
regard to alerts for local
travel,” he says.
However, both corporates
and TMCs are required
to alert their travellers
about potential threats
in writing, as soon as
the trip is confirmed and
regardless of where the
traveller is travelling,
says Advocate Louis
Nel. Failure to do so
constitutes a breach of
duty of care in the form of
negligence, he says.
Making a booking
but failing to advise
passengers of imminent
danger is thus a breach of
duty of care, says Louis,
and there is no difference
whether the intended
journey is of a local or
international nature.
 “Given that travel
agents should be properly
trained and have the
skills and knowledge to
adequately advise clients,
the failure to impart that
knowledge could see
the court find that they
breached a duty of care
and they will be held liable
for the consequences,”
Louis says.
“Section 49 of the
Consumer Protection Act
requires certain aspects
of the transactions to be
brought to the attention
of the consumer in
writing as soon as the
payment is made or
activity is embarked on
and it must be done in
such a way that it will
‘attract the attention
of an ordinarily alert
consumer’,” he says.
On the other hand,
the law will not hold
any person liable for
harm done that was not
foreseeable, says Louis,
even if it was caused by a
breach in duty of care.
Foreseeability is
determined by whether
the harm is likely to come
to fruition, the chance
that the risk would turn
into actual harm and the
probable severity of the
harm if it were to occur.
“Conversely, if it is
proved that the harm
was not foreseeable,
there is no duty of care,”
says Louis.