Asked by Brianna Hernandez on Mar 10, 2024



Mrs. Kahn arranged a trip to Europe for herself and her two children. Her husband couldn't go. She spent hours with the travel agent, Mr. Tobin, deciding on the vacation package. She asked him and wrote a note asking again what documents, shots, etc., would be needed for the trip. Tobin said and wrote that all they would need would be their passports. Tobin forgot to tell her that a new regulation required a note from the father allowing the children to leave Canada, although he had received a memo in red warning him to alert travellers of the new regulation. When Mrs. Kahn and the children reached Toronto to embark on a plane for London, they were stopped because she did not have the required note from Mr. Kahn. They lost their reservations for both the plane and the tour with no refund. On these facts, which of the following is true?

A) A travel agent owes no duty of care to his customers.
B) There could be a civil action against Mr. Tobin and against his employer, although the employer did no wrong.
C) Mr. Tobin could sue for false imprisonment.
D) There is no possibility of suing Mr. Tobin because he had no intention of hurting anyone; his oversight was just an accident.
E) Libel is the only tort available for persons injured by another's words.

Civil Action

A legal proceeding in which one private party sues another for personal harm or damage, in contrast to a criminal prosecution.

Duty Of Care

The legal obligation to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably cause harm to others.


Rules or directives made and maintained by an authority to control or govern behavior within a system.

  • Perceive the role and constraints of tort law in dispensing compensation to victims.
  • Explain the standard of care required in negligence claims.

Verified Answer

Sarah Beyer

Mar 10, 2024

Final Answer :
Explanation :
Mr. Tobin, as a travel agent, had a duty of care to inform Mrs. Kahn of all necessary travel requirements, including new regulations. His failure to do so, despite being explicitly warned, could lead to a civil action against him and his employer based on the principle of vicarious liability, where employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees performed within the scope of their employment.