Prior to the trip Grand Circle provided a written warning that Inca ruins were spread out over steep hillsides "with large stone steps and uneven surfaces" and that there were sometimes no handrails.

The destination guide also provided written instructions not to climb the walls that support Machu Picchu’s terraces but to follow only the designated walking routes.

The guide said he also warned of slippery conditions because it was raining, but Kalter said she had not heard that warning.

Endangered herself

Exploring the ruins on her own, Kalter left designated trails and stepped onto two stones that protrude from the terrace walls, called floating steps, for a better view.

She fell, rolling over several terraces before coming to a stop.

When Kalter sued for damages, the tour operator won summary judgment based on "the doctrine of primary assumption of risk," which says the client assumed the risks inherent in the activity, and on the grounds that Grand Circle had no duty to warn of dangers anyone could see.

The US District Court for Central California has agreed with Grand Circle on both points.

The court said that Kalter, an experienced hiker, was aware of the risks associated with a hike through Machu Picchu. 

Additionally, the judge concluded, when Kalter left the established stone pathway she "further endangered herself by stepping onto the floating steps."

The judge also ruled that it was established law that there is no duty to warn when a danger is equally obvious to everyone. The possibility of slipping when stepping on a wet stone step protruding from a vertical wall is "undoubtedly an obvious danger," the judge said.

An important case for the travel industry

Grand Circle’s attorney, Rodney Gould, said the case was important for tour operators and travel agents because, as far as he knew, it was the first decision based on California law that "frontally addresses the primary assumption of risk … in the context of a guided tour."

"It is a ringing endorsement" of the notion that people have to take care of themselves, said Gould.

Gould said the Peru case provided significant precedent in California because it was based on California law, but judges outside the state could cite the "well-written, well-reasoned" decision when they have cases with similar fact situations.

Katz can appeal, but Gould said the tour operator may offer a settlement to help with legal fees to bring the matter to a close.