Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock
Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock is a South African contract-law case about exemption clauses in tour contracts. Hircock, a passenger on a Drifters tour, was injured in a motor-vehicle accident caused by a Drifters employee and claimed damages. Before the tour she signed an indemnity form. The front of the form had a broad indemnity; the reverse included a narrower clause that exempted Drifters from liability for “the nature of hiking, camping, touring, driving.”
The trial court held that the form did not exempt Drifters from liability. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal said indemnity clauses should be read restrictively and in the context of the whole contract, including the reverse side. If the wording is unclear, it should be interpreted in the way least favorable to the party who drafted it.
The court considered whether the word “driving” could be read to mean driving anywhere in the country or on any terrain, but a reasonable reader would understand it in the context of adventure activities as driving on unmade roads or difficult, exciting terrain. Since Drifters is required by law to have passenger liability insurance, it would be unfair to allow it to contract out of liability completely.
The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s decision was confirmed.
This page was last edited on 3 February 2026, at 12:35 (CET).