Travel Risk | Business Litigation | Society

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in February 2025 against Connecticut-based African Portfolio Inc. is drawing legal attention across the U.S. travel and liability sectors. The case stems from a fatal hippopotamus attack that occurred during a guided walking safari in Zambia in June 2024, which resulted in the death of Lisa Manders, a 70-year-old tourist from New Jersey.

Filed in the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford by her husband, Craig Manders, the suit presents complex issues of duty of care, transnational tort jurisdiction, and third-party vendor liability—raising questions that could influence how U.S. courts handle liability in international adventure tourism.

Case Overview

Manders v. African Portfolio Inc. centers on the events of a luxury safari booked by African Portfolio, which arranged accommodations and experiences through third-party Zambian provider Chiawa Safaris. According to the complaint, the couple was participating in a “bush walk”—a close-range wildlife experience—when safari guides encouraged them to move toward a riverbank near a hippo. A hippo charged the group, fatally attacking Lisa Manders.

The lawsuit alleges:

• Negligent trip planning and supervision by African Portfolio;
• Failure to adequately warn or prepare clients for wildlife risk;
• Emotional and psychological trauma suffered by Craig Manders, who witnessed the attack;
• That the tour operator bears responsibility for the actions and omissions of its overseas partners.

Legal Arguments & Strategic Positions

Plaintiff’s Position

The plaintiff argues that the U.S. company:

• Was responsible for selecting and contracting the Zambian safari provider;
• Failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the competence and safety practices of its partners;
• Owed a non-delegable duty of care to its clients, regardless of foreign subcontractors.

The lawsuit invokes claims of wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of duty of care under common law. The filing also seeks compensatory and potentially punitive damages, though no specific amount has been disclosed.

Defense Strategy

African Portfolio, represented by Rodney Gould of Rubin and Rudman LLP, has taken a defensive posture on multiple fronts:

• Proximate causation: Arguing that the hippo’s attack and the guides’ actions were outside its direct control;
• Scope of responsibility: Emphasizing that it only arranged travel and lodging, not the direct safari operations;
• Arbitration clause: The company may seek dismissal or compel arbitration under the terms of the travel contract signed by the Manderses.

This is a classic “independent contractor” defense, which will likely hinge on the extent to which the company had control over the safari operation or held itself out as the provider of the on-the-ground services.

Jurisdictional & Procedural Considerations

One of the key legal issues is whether a Connecticut state court has jurisdiction over a case involving injury that occurred abroad, carried out by foreign nationals, under services contracted domestically.

While forum non conveniens could be raised, courts have in recent years become more receptive to hearing international personal injury claims—especially when the U.S.-based company serves as the principal organizer or marketing face of the trip.

Moreover, courts will need to assess:

• Whether African Portfolio’s vetting of Chiawa Safaris met “reasonable standards” for due diligence;
• If African Portfolio presented itself as a full-service operator, or merely a travel coordinator;
• The enforceability of any liability waivers or arbitration clauses in the booking contract.

Industry Implication

This case reflects growing exposure in the adventure tourism and luxury safari sectors. U.S. tour operators, even those contracting reputable foreign partners, may be held liable under negligent selection and marketing misrepresentation doctrines.

Legal experts anticipate increased scrutiny over:

• Contractual disclaimers and duty allocation in travel agreements;
• Whether tour companies adequately warn clients about wildlife risks, especially in high-risk areas like sub-Saharan Africa;
• The role of psychological trauma and emotional distress as standalone tort claims.

Looking Ahead

The case is still in its preliminary stage, with no rulings on motions or jurisdiction as of July 2025. Observers expect motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration, which could test the outer boundaries of U.S. tort law’s reach over globalized tourism models.

Should the case proceed to discovery or trial, it could set a precedent for transnational liability in tourism-related injury and death cases, expanding the duty of care owed by U.S.-based travel planners and tour companies.

Conclusion

The Manders case is a poignant reminder that the legal liabilities of tourism extend beyond borders. As travelers seek ever more immersive and high-risk experiences, U.S. courts may be asked to balance consumer protection with the realities of global contracting—and to decide where the line of legal responsibility ends.