2. 1. The package tour organized in Japan 2. The responsibility of the travel agency 3. The extent of compensation 4. The leading cases 5. In comparison to EC Directive 1990 (90/314/EEC) 6. Itemized Package 7. In the event of bankruptcy 8. Conclusion

3. 1 One of the biggest problems of the package tours is overseas bus accidents. Japanese travelers prefer traveling around to staying at one place. Riding buses is a major part of the package tour. Bus accidents are inevitable.

4. 2 The bus accident causes serious damages such as death or critical injury. However, great difficulties are brought to the casualties to recover the damages. It is very difficult to file a lawsuit against the overseas bus company because of the jurisdiction. It costs a lot to file a suit with overseas court. After all, the travel agent which organized the tour can not help but be brought to the defendant position of the case.

5. 1 The responsibility of the travel agency is limited to the selection and supervision of the bus company according to Japans travel agency law. While, subject to the Directive (90/314/EEC) the travel agency holds the same responsibility as the bus company. article 5 : the organizer and/or retailer party to the contract is liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the obligations arising from the contract, irrespective of whether such obligations are to be performed by that organizer and/or retailer or by other suppliers of services without prejudice to the right of the organizer and/or retailer to pursue other suppliers of services

6. 2 However, in Japan an extraordinary compensation system has been introduced. This is on no –fault compensation basis. In the case of death: 25million yen per person (about 160,000 euros) In the case of sequela : up to 25million yen In the case of hospitalization: up to 400,000 yen (about 2,600 euros) In the case of outpatient: up to 200,000 yen (about 1,300 euros )

7. 3 The party at fault of an accident causing death must bear 70 to 80 million yen on average as personal-injury compensation,. About one third of this compensation is paid as no-fault compensation,. 4 After all, compensation over the extraordinary compensation cap has to be paid in civil court by plaintiff

8. 1 Due to no-fault, the traveler / compensation recipient would be compensated even in the event of a natural disaster such as earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami and so on While, according to the EC Directive (90/314/EEC), in such events the traveler / compensation recipient would not be compensated. Article 5: in a case of force majeure, the traveler / compensation recipient would not generally be compensated Is my conception correct?

9. 2 Regardless of no-fault compensation, the traveler / compensation recipient would not be compensated in event of the following events ; Self-inflicted injury, suicide, criminal activity, drunken driving and so on, War, civil unrest, riots, terrorism and so on 3 Optional tour purchased by the traveler on-site is excluded from compensation

10. 1 Taiwan case Verdict by the Tokyo District Court June 20, 1989 In February 1986 a bus fell into a ravine killing 8 Japanese passengers and critically injuring 8 on board in central Taiwan. The cause of the accident was negligent driving. However, the case was dismissed, as the courts ruled that the travel agency provided sufficient investigation and sound judgment

11. 2 Karakorum Highway case Verdict by the Tokyo District Court December 27, 1988 Karakorum Highway Accident In September 1984, a bus equipped with threadbare tires fell into a ravine leaving 4 Japanese passengers dead and 9 critically injured. The accident apparently was caused by the driver losing control due to a tire blast. The tire blast was caused by the tire hitting a rock. However, it couldnt be determined whether the threadbare of the tire was the cause of the blow out or not. Therefore, the travel agency was not held responsible for their choice of transport.

12. 1 In the Karakorum Highway case, neither Japanese Law nor EC Directive impose the responsibility on the travel agency. In the Taiwan case the travel agency should hold the responsibility under EC Directive while in the Karakorum Highway case it should not. Is my conception correct?

13. 2 Japanese travel agencies do not hold the responsibility either in the Taiwan case or in Karakorum Highway case. In Japan, considering the next revision of Travel Agency Law, this difference in outcome between EU and Japan is one of the most hotly debated issues.

14. 1 The package tour has both advertising style and entrusted style. Both styles are supposed to be covered by the extraordinary no-fault compensation system.

15. 2 However, when the price of each component is clearly shown by the travel agency, the package is not covered by the extraordinary no-fault compensation system. Reference: Article 2 of EC Directive (90/314/EEC) The separate billing of various components of the same package shall not absolve the organizer or retailer from the obligations under this Direct Even if each price is clearly shown, the package is also held responsible by travel agency under EC Directive. Is this understanding correct?

16. 3 The internet brings the era of various types of itemized package tours. The issues of the itemized packages in which each price is clearly shown are now one of the biggest problems in Japans travel industry.

17. The travel agencies deposit for bankruptcy security is insufficient as it is only 1%-2% of the companys operating sum, which is enough to cover cancellations in an event of bankruptcy, but inadequate to compensate for losses caused by a major accident.

18. In a case of an accident abroad, if you can sue the service provider abroad, the casualties can be paid. In order to achieve this end, the IFTTA network can play an important role. I hope that the IFTTA net work will be solidified more and more.