Tourists nearly drowned in Madagascar and sued the travel agency for compensation — the court sided with the company

A Czech family who went on an optional excursion to the island of Nosy Iranja off the coast of Madagascar nearly drowned during high tide and later took legal action against their tour operator, demanding more than 100,000 crowns in compensation for the ordeal. However, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has definitively rejected their complaint, ruling that the tourists themselves were to blame for what happened.

The incident occurred while the travel agency's representative was accompanying another group arriving on a second boat, and the family in the meantime set off on their own along a sandbar to a nearby islet. On the way back, they discovered that the path was almost completely flooded by the incoming tide, with waves further complicating the route to safety.

The family described the experience as "shocking and life-threatening" and filed a lawsuit against the tour operator, arguing that the company's representative should have warned them about the danger of such a walk. The court of first instance partially upheld their claim, but the appellate court, and subsequently the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, dismissed the lawsuit.

According to the courts, the tour operator's representative could theoretically have warned the tourists, but in this particular case the omission was deemed minor. The court established that the family had already been warned about the dangers of the tide by other holidaymakers — yet the couple, traveling with a small child, decided to continue anyway.

The Supreme Court stated: "By setting off for the neighboring island without waiting for the travel agency's representative to arrive, the plaintiffs themselves deprived themselves of the opportunity to obtain the necessary information." In the court's view, the main cause of the incident was circumstances for which the plaintiffs themselves bear responsibility, having abandoned a logical and cautious approach to the situation on the island despite warnings from others about the rising tide.

The family disagreed with the ruling and appealed to the Constitutional Court, claiming their rights had been violated. They insisted that their actions could not be called illogical or reckless, and reiterated that they should have received instructions from the travel agency's representative, since they could not have anticipated that the path would be flooded.

However, the panel of judges, chaired by reporting judge Martin Smolek, did not accept these arguments. "The applicants were warned by another group of tourists about the danger of the tide. Despite this warning, they continued on their way," the ruling, published recently, states. As a result, the family's complaint was found to be manifestly unfounded and was dismissed.

Around Prague, based on reporting by novinky.cz