Feb 25, 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #5 of 7
I thought that this is an interesting lawsuit because of the precedent it would set if the victim prevails. In this case, the issue is whether a travel agency has a duty to warn but failed to do so. Currently, though, there is another phenomenon in which the Mexican tourism department is having to face declining revenues specifically due to the narco-violence in different parts of the country. The recent warden message, for example, has been roundly criticized by both state and local governments as well as hotel and restaurant chambers for exaggerating the risk posed to tourists. Acapulco, for example, has been devasted by the double whammy of frequent shootouts and resultant hotel cancellations. The local officials have implored the residents to take up the campaign "Habla bien de Aca" which endeavors to attract tourists by claiming that it is safe for them to return as in earlier times. So, hypothetically, what if a tourist chose one location over another specifically because of a representation such as that described and, unfortunately, fell victim to a violent crime? Would the authors of the advertising campaign be liable for damages or, as has been suggested, the victim should have understood the inherent danger and, in essence, hasn't got a case?
(This post was edited by Brian on Feb 25, 2011, 10:51 AM)