According to the judgment, which shares the criteria of the first instance, the article 11 of the law 21/1995 on package travels establishes a criterion of attribution in solidum of the liability of organizers and retailers, for which “it is not necessary an excessive speculative effort” due to a protectionist aim in favor of the consumer, regarding the package sold to the consumer, its execution and its correct development, which is grounded as well in the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users of 1984 (art. 27).
The offer of an optional excursion, not included as such in the initial tourist package, has to be interpreted as part of the “organizational plan” of the tourist activity offered by the wholesaler organizer of the trip. This is concluded from the information of the brochure and from the opportunity provided in the offer for it to be agreed, so that the users could be under the impression of a compulsory link with the same organizer, as part of the tourist activity agreed. For that reason the organizer of the trip has to be liable too of the potential damages of these optional excursions, without prejudice of their right to reimbursement in relation to who effectively caused the damage and its dependants or whoever is advertised as its representative. The compensation eventually established on the grounds of aesthetic damages (10,392 euros) has to be paid by the defendants (the organizer of the trip and its insurance company).