In the federal case of Fling v. Hollywood Travel and Tours, 765 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ohio 1990), the court addressed the scope of duty owed by travel agents and tour operators to their customers, with pivotal input from a Tourism & Travel Industry Expert Witness. The case arose from a violent attack on plaintiffs Doris and William Fling during a promotional trip to the Bahamas, arranged by the defendants, Hollywood Travel and Tours and Passkey International.
Background and Parties
The plaintiffs were solicited by a campground development company to attend a sales presentation, in exchange for which they received a vacation certificate redeemable through the defendants. The defendants arranged the plaintiffs’ airfare and hotel accommodations at the Emerald Star Hotel on Grand Bahama Island. On the night of the incident, the plaintiffs were attacked while walking back to their hotel from a nearby casino.
Role and Methods of the Expert Witness
The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from their Tourism & Travel Industry Expert Witness, who opined that the Grand Bahamas was a known high-crime area. The expert’s testimony addressed industry standards regarding the duty of travel agents and tour operators to warn travelers about foreseeable risks, particularly in destinations with elevated crime rates. The expert reviewed crime statistics, industry publications, and the practices of comparable travel providers to assess whether the defendants’ conduct met the standard of care expected in the tourism industry.
Court’s Reliability and Daubert Analysis
The court considered the expert’s affidavit as part of the summary judgment record. However, the court scrutinized the reliability and relevance of the expert’s conclusions, focusing on whether the defendants could reasonably have foreseen the criminal attack. The court noted that the defendants had sent over 20,000 travelers to the Emerald Star Hotel, with no prior complaints regarding personal safety. The defendants’ president, Michael Tellshow, provided an affidavit stating he had personally stayed at the hotel and observed no conditions suggesting it was in a high-crime area.
The court applied principles analogous to Daubert, evaluating whether the expert’s testimony was grounded in sufficient facts and reliable methodology. The court found that, while the expert identified general crime risks in the area, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendants knew or should have known of a specific, foreseeable danger to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the defendants did not own, operate, or manage the hotel, and their role was limited to arranging accommodations.
Impact of Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The expert’s testimony was central to the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants breached a duty to warn of foreseeable risks. However, the court ultimately held that the evidence, including the expert’s affidavit, did not create a triable issue of fact regarding foreseeability. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that absent special circumstances or prior incidents, travel agents and tour operators are not liable for criminal acts committed by third parties at destination hotels.
This case illustrates the critical role of a Tourism & Travel Industry Expert Witness in defining industry standards and informing the court’s analysis of duty and foreseeability. The court’s careful consideration of the expert’s methodology and the factual record underscores the importance of reliable, industry-specific testimony in travel liability litigation. The outcome demonstrates that, while expert opinions can shape the contours of legal duty, they must be supported by concrete evidence linking industry standards to the facts of the case to survive judicial scrutiny.