skirecht.at
by Brandauer RA
DE EN BKS
Menü
Slope accidents

Artificial snow and the slope safety duty, when the operator is liable (and when not)

OGH 7 Ob 80/23z: artificial snow is not an atypical hazard. When a claim against the slope operator still works: snow guns, hidden ice, bare patches.

Your personal attorney

Mag. Christopher Angerer

Your lawyer for ski piste and mountain sports law

Ski accidents are complex and emotional. One lawyer you know, from the first question to the courtroom.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
28 May 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer

With the end of the ski season approaching, evidence, deadlines and the legal assessment of recent falls come to the foreground. This post opens the series "Slope safety 2026" on skirecht.at and addresses a recurring question: when does artificial snow give rise to a liability claim against the slope operator, and when does it not?

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) clarified the line with its decision of 28 June 2023, 7 Ob 80/23z, in a much-cited ruling. This post works through the line, places it in the wider recent case law and shows, from the perspective of the injured skier, the fact patterns in which a claim against the slope operator is still promising, such as snow-making devices, hidden ice or unexpected bare patches.

Audience: injured skiers and their families. The presentation is from the perspective of a lawyer enforcing claims; it does not replace individual legal advice but gives well-founded guidance for the first steps.

Frame the situation

What really caused the fall?

Answer a short entry question on the actual cause. The assessment shows you whether the OGH line on artificial snow applies or whether a different liability track stands up.

You already know you want to send a request? Go directly to the contact form.

01 Question 1

What was the actual cause of the fall?

Artificial snow itself is not an atypical hazard under the OGH line. It is different when not the snow, but devices, supply lines or connectors were involved.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Purely snow consistency, liability of the slope operator is in principle not to be expected under OGH 7 Ob 80/23z.

The OGH line is clear: the presence of artificial snow and its consistency, which differs from natural snow, are not atypical hazards which the slope operator would have to secure against. A 10 cm thick drier layer over a wetter sub-layer was not enough, under decision 7 Ob 80/23z, to establish a breach of the safety duty.

A claim against the slope operator is, in this constellation, usually not promising. It makes sense to check your own private accident insurance, whose payouts are typically independent of fault. With more severe injuries a brief legal assessment is worthwhile to make sure no atypical component is missed.

02

Different category, the snow-making device is an artificial massive obstacle and is subject to a safety duty.

This is an entirely different liability picture. Snow-making devices, snow lances and their supply installations are artificial and massive obstacles in the dedicated ski area. Under the new thesis of the 2023 Seilbahnsymposium (ZVR 2023, 469), they must in principle be mechanically secured, that is fitted with padding on the support frame, where the construction allows. Pure optical securing through visibility nets is now only acceptable as an exception.

Concrete pointers to liability: missing padding despite suitable construction, unfavourable location in steep terrain, position below a terrain edge that makes the device hard to spot. Early securing of evidence is critical, photos of the device and its securing (or its absence), slope-rescue protocol, GPS coordinates.

03

Hidden ice under an artificial-snow cover can be atypical, evidentiary effort is high.

An icy layer that is not recognisable under a fresh artificial-snow cover may, in the individual case, count as an atypical hazard. The decisive question is the surprise element for a responsible slope user. Case law is cautious: where the change in snow conditions traces back to predictable weather (such as strong sun exposure producing firned snow), the courts regularly deny a safety duty (cf OLG Graz 16.12.2024, 7 R 42/24 m, on firned snow). Genuine icing that is no longer recognisable under a thin powder cover weighs heavier.

A claim is possible, but the evidentiary effort is high. The slope grooming protocols of the day, temperature progression, snow-making logs and an expert report on snow layering are the typical means of proof. An early legal assessment is advisable.

04

Bare ground patches can be atypical when large, sudden or unusual.

Bare ground patches in the middle of an artificially snowed slope are named in the literature as a typical atypical hazard (Lexis briefing slope safety, February 2026, citing 3 Ob 643/76). The condition is that they are surprising, large and hard to ride around. For small, well-visible bare patches case law denies a safety duty (OLG Linz 23.4.2024, 2 R 54/24 k).

The claim in this constellation often holds up, where the slope marking included the patch, visibility was good and the transition from snow to grass or gravel was abrupt. Photos of the slope progression 30 metres before and after the spot are central evidence.

The OGH line on artificial snow: 7 Ob 80/23z

In decision 7 Ob 80/23z, the OGH dealt with a fall triggered by a two-layered artificial snow blanket: on top a roughly 10 cm thick drier layer, below it a water-saturated, wetter stratum. The lower courts denied an atypical and thus securable hazard; the OGH confirmed this.

The Senate relies on settled case law on the slope safety duty (Pistensicherungspflicht): only atypical hazards are subject to securing, that is obstacles which the skier cannot easily recognise or which he can only hardly avoid despite recognisability. The decisive factor is the element of surprise for the responsible slope user.

The central statement for practice: artificial snow as such and its consistency, which differs from natural snow, are not atypical hazards. Anyone who falls on a snow-made slope because of the snow consistency usually has no viable claim against the slope operator. This holds true even where the skier subjectively expected a different consistency.

Drawing the line: snow versus technology

Decision 7 Ob 80/23z is a pure snow ruling. It says nothing about the duties of the ski area operators regarding the snow-making technology itself. A second, very differently positioned line of authority starts here.

Snow-making devices, snow lances, hoses, connector boxes and other supply installations are artificial and massive obstacles in the dedicated ski area. The 2023 Seilbahnsymposium clarified with the new thesis (ZVR 2023, 469) that these devices must in principle be mechanically secured, that is padded on the support frame, where construction allows and function is not impaired. Pure optical securing through visibility nets is now only acceptable in exceptional cases.

For the injured skier this means: the question "snow or device?" decides the prospects of success. With a collision against an unpadded mobile snow generator in flatter, well-visible terrain, the old line of pure optical securing is no longer sustainable. In-depth treatment in the post on snow cannons.

Practical steps after the fall

Anyone who falls on an artificially snowed slope should, regardless of the suspected cause, secure evidence immediately: photos of the fall point, of the slope course 30 metres before and after, of the markings and of any snow-making devices in the vicinity. Call for slope rescue and note the protocol number. Talk to witnesses and collect contact details.

In the first consultation the situation is legally framed. Was really only snow consistency at stake, or was there a hidden technical component, a connector box, an icy spot under thin cover, an exposed supply pipe? Slope grooming logs and snow-making data for the day are requested specifically.

The limitation period is three years from knowledge of damage and tortfeasor (Section 1489 ABGB). For protracted recoveries a declaratory action to suspend the period should be considered early on. A private accident insurance pays out independent of fault and at least cushions the financial consequences, even if a claim against the slope operator fails.

In short: Artificial snow as snow is, under OGH 7 Ob 80/23z, not an atypical hazard; a claim against the slope operator fails in the pure consistency constellation. Snow-making technology as obstacle, however, is very much subject to a safety duty and, under the new thesis of 2023, in principle to be mechanically padded.

Frequently asked

Artificial snow and liability, the key answers.

Do I have a liability claim if I fell because of an icy patch under artificial snow? +

In the individual case yes, but the evidentiary effort is high. Decisive is whether the icing was, under the thin artificial-snow cover, surprising and hard to avoid for a responsible skier. Slope grooming protocols, temperature progression and an expert opinion on snow layering are the typical means of proof.

Do the OGH statements on artificial snow also cover mobile snow cannons? +

No, these are two different topics. Decision 7 Ob 80/23z concerns only the snow consistency, not the devices. For snow-making devices, the new thesis of the 2023 Seilbahnsymposium applies, under which mechanical securing (padding) is in principle required where the construction allows it.

How much time do I have to bring a claim? +

The limitation period is three years from knowledge of damage and tortfeasor (Section 1489 ABGB). With late-onset consequences, an early declaratory action to suspend the period is advisable so that damage which is not yet quantifiable remains preserved.

Does it matter whether I skied with rented or owned equipment? +

For the slope operator's liability the ownership of equipment does not matter. For contributory negligence, a grossly unsuitable choice of material can speak against FIS Rule 2 (controlled skiing). With rental gear the rental contract may additionally come into play if the equipment was defective.

Is legal advice worthwhile even for a pure artificial-snow fall without a technical component? +

A short initial assessment makes sense, because the situation often turns out to be more complex on closer inspection than initially thought. Technical components, marking defects or atypical spots which the injured skier does not see on his own are common. Only after the intake can it be judged whether pursuing a claim is economically sensible.

Had an accident?

The sooner we secure the evidence, the better we can enforce your claim. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.

+43 660 2407152 [email protected]
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg