In 2016, a zip-line cable snapped at a commercial operation in Delaware, injuring a rider who fell 30 feet. The operator had not replaced the cable in over four years despite manufacturer guidelines requiring annual inspection and replacement. The injured party sued the operator, the property owner, and the event planner who booked the experience. All three were held liable.
The problem
Adventure tourism is the fastest-growing segment of the US travel industry. The Adventure Travel Trade Association estimated the global adventure travel market at $683 billion in 2023. With that growth comes a rising volume of incidents. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported over 15,000 ATV-related emergency room visits in 2022 alone. Zip-line injuries prompted the ASTM International to publish standard F2959, covering design, manufacture, and operation of zip-line systems, but compliance is voluntary.
For DMCs, the liability exposure is structural. When a DMC contracts a local zip-line operator, ATV provider, or rafting outfitter for a client program, the DMC enters the liability chain. Injured participants sue every entity involved in delivering the experience: the direct operator, the property owner, and the company that selected and booked the activity. The legal theory is straightforward. By choosing the supplier, the DMC assumed a duty of care in that selection.
The distinction between ordinary and gross negligence is the central legal question. Ordinary negligence means a failure to exercise reasonable care. Gross negligence means a conscious, voluntary disregard for the need to use reasonable care, creating a foreseeable risk of harm. Most liability waivers, even well-drafted ones, are unenforceable against gross negligence claims in every US state.
Ordinary vs. gross negligence in adventure contexts
Courts evaluate negligence based on the specific facts and the applicable standard of care. In Salerno v. Outdoor Adventures (Colorado, 2018), a rafting outfitter was found grossly negligent for sending a group into Class IV rapids with a guide who had less than two weeks of training. The court held that the waiver signed by participants could not shield the outfitter from gross negligence. By contrast, in Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd. (Vermont, 1995), the court found that a ski resort's general waiver was enforceable for ordinary negligence claims arising from standard skiing risks. The pattern is consistent: if the operator knew or should have known about a safety deficiency and failed to act, courts classify the conduct as gross negligence and the waiver fails.
The DMC's position in the liability chain
A DMC that books an adventure activity is not a passive intermediary in the eyes of the law. Under theories of negligent selection and negligent retention, the DMC can be held liable for choosing a supplier that a reasonable investigation would have revealed to be unsafe. If the zip-line operator had prior safety violations, if the ATV provider lacked proper insurance, if the rafting company used guides without current certifications, the DMC's failure to check becomes its own act of negligence. In Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort (Washington, 2008), a court held that the booking entity had a duty to investigate the safety record of the activity provider it selected.
Building a due diligence defense
The most effective defense for a DMC is a documented due diligence process conducted before contracting with any adventure supplier. This means collecting and verifying current insurance certificates with adequate limits, checking for regulatory violations or prior incident history, confirming guide certifications and training records, and reviewing equipment maintenance logs. If an incident occurs, the DMC's documented vetting process becomes evidence that it exercised reasonable care in supplier selection. Without that documentation, the DMC has no defense against a negligent selection claim.
What to do now
If you book adventure activities for clients, you are in the liability chain. No waiver eliminates your exposure to gross negligence claims. The only reliable protection is a documented due diligence process that demonstrates you investigated the supplier's safety record, insurance, certifications, and equipment maintenance before signing the contract. Run this process for every adventure supplier, update it annually, and keep every record. When the lawsuit arrives, your documentation is your defense.