A deaf ski-course participant does not understand a safety instruction: BGStG, reasonable adjustment, communication measures, evidence and conciliation.
Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Your lawyer for ski and alpine accidents
Ski and alpine accidents are complex and emotional. One lawyer you know, from the first question to the courtroom. Strong practical background (former ski instructor, mountain rescuer and dog handler).
In larger cases, the work is handled as a team (lawyer, trainee lawyer, legal assistant). Court hearings and negotiations always remain a matter for the lead lawyer.
If a deaf ski-course participant does not understand a safety instruction, the communication must be examined in concrete terms. The central question is whether the provider created a suitable and reasonable way to communicate safety information before and during the course.
Austria's Disability Equality Act prohibits discrimination on grounds of disability. It does not require an identical course process in every case and section 6 BGStG does not create a blanket right to a personal sign-language interpreter. Effort, financial capacity, public funding and the effect of the measure must be assessed in the individual case.
This article concerns safety communication in a ski course offered to the public. The applicable jurisdiction, course service, any injury and the liability of the ski school or instructor must be examined separately. This information is not individual legal advice.
Answer four questions about the safety instruction, adjustment, response and evidence. The result is not an individual legal assessment.
Would you like to discuss the situation directly? Open the contact form.
Identify whether communication failed before participation, during the briefing or only when a specific danger arose.
Sort the material into request, response, agreed communication and actual course events. Record which safety information was not understood and which measure you considered sufficient.
A refusal alone does not prove discrimination. It can be an important issue if no suitable alternative was considered or participation was restricted without a concrete assessment.
Write down promptly when you raised the communication need, what the ski school said and which safety instruction was later not understandable. Separate your own perception, statements by other people and later legal assessments.
The next step is to assess whether a reasonable improvement in communication would have been possible and whether the course caused a disadvantage. A lack of documents makes proof more difficult, but it does not automatically exclude an assessment.
Section 2(2) BGStG covers legal relationships and their formation, as well as the use of services, where goods or services are made available to the public. A paid ski course offered generally can therefore be a starting point for this assessment.
The provision also links its scope to the direct regulatory competence of the federal government. In a ski-school relationship, the service, its organisation and the relevant jurisdiction must therefore be considered. The fact that a course is publicly offered does not alone establish that every part of the BGStG applies conclusively.
For an initial assessment, preserve the provider details, booking channel, course conditions and the communication situation. Provincial ski-school rules and a federal equality assessment may answer different questions and must not be treated as interchangeable.
Section 4(1) BGStG prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of disability. Section 5(1) describes direct discrimination as less favourable treatment in a comparable situation. An express refusal because of deafness therefore raises a different question from a general spoken briefing that places a deaf participant at a particular disadvantage in practice.
Section 5(2) covers indirect discrimination where apparently neutral rules, criteria or procedures may place people with disabilities at a particular disadvantage. A spoken safety briefing is therefore not automatically unlawful. The relevant facts include its content, urgency, comprehensibility, available alternatives and the provider's response.
The assessment needs facts rather than labels: Which warning or rule mattered? Was the provider told about the deafness beforehand? Which communication method was possible? Was an appropriate adjustment offered or rejected without examination? These questions connect the situation to sections 4 and 5 BGStG.
Section 6(1) BGStG excludes indirect discrimination where removing the disadvantageous condition would be unlawful or unreasonable because of disproportionate burdens. This calls for a proportionality assessment. It is neither a blanket exemption for the provider nor a requirement for one identical solution in every course.
Section 6(2) lists, among other things, the effort involved, the financial capacity of the party contesting discrimination, public funding, the time since the Act entered into force and the impact of the disadvantage on the protected group. In a ski course, group size, preparation time, available communication tools, course organisation and the safety significance of the information may therefore matter.
If complete removal of the disadvantage would be disproportionate, section 6(3) still requires reasonable measures that produce a material improvement and come as close as possible to equal treatment. This does not create an automatic right to a particular assistant. Suitable alternatives must be examined, such as written or visual safety information, a visible signal and stop system, an individual briefing or another organisational solution.
These examples are not a fixed checklist. They show which questions should be clarified before participation.
| Before the course | During the briefing | During the activity |
|---|---|---|
| Explain the communication need and safety risks in writing. | Explain rules, route and stop signals visibly and clearly. | Use the agreed signals and check that they are understood. |
| Agree the response method and a responsible contact person. | Use face-to-face communication, written notes or visual media where suitable. | If communication is unclear, stop, clarify and adjust the process. |
| Discuss cost, availability and organisational limits openly. | Consider an individual briefing or suitable assistance. | Record deviations from the agreed communication method. |
The course, group, danger and actual understanding remain decisive.
Safety communication begins before the first run. The participant should explain which form of communication works reliably and which warnings, signals or situations are particularly critical. The provider should state which measures can actually be implemented in the course concerned.
Depending on the situation, possible measures include short written rules, a visibly explained sequence of signs, a personal briefing, captions or visual material, an agreed hand signal and a named contact person. In a moving group it may also be necessary to agree how a stop or danger will be signalled when shouted instructions cannot be relied on.
The measure must match the specific danger. A written course description cannot replace an immediate warning on the slope. Conversely, a spontaneous communication problem does not automatically require the entire course to end if a safe and reasonable alternative can be created at once. Actual understanding and safe implementation remain decisive.
Ask for a written clarification before booking or as soon as possible after booking. Explain specifically that spoken safety instructions or shouted warnings cannot be understood reliably, which signals are needed and which situations may create particular risks. A general request for accessibility leaves more unresolved than a concrete request.
Keep the ski school response, course description, booking documents and any instructions. After the course, record which measure was agreed, whether it was implemented and when an instruction or warning was not understood. Witnesses should state only what they perceived themselves; later legal assessments should be kept separate.
If an injury occurred, also keep medical records, the accident report, photographs, names of the people involved and the chronology. Discrimination and compensation liability after a ski accident may be connected, but they are not the same issue. Each legal basis requires its own factual proof.
Section 14 BGStG provides for conciliation proceedings at each provincial office of the Social Ministry Service in matters of disability equality. The procedure begins with a written request or an oral request recorded in the minutes, asserting discrimination and seeking conciliation. It ends with an agreement or confirmation that no amicable agreement was reached.
Before taking this step, organise the facts as precisely as possible: provider, course, communication need, requested measure, response, actual events and any consequences. Conciliation can make a practical solution possible, but it does not replace an assessment of whether the particular facts fall within the BGStG.
Section 9(1) BGStG refers, where the prohibition in section 4(1) has been violated, to compensation for financial loss and compensation for the personal impairment suffered. Section 9(2), by contrast, concerns harassment under section 5(4) and adds a reasonable compensation of at least EUR 1,000. That harassment rule must not be presented as a general minimum amount for every communication barrier.
Important: A deaf participant does not automatically have a right to a personal sign-language interpreter in every ski course. The provider may not dismiss the request without a concrete proportionality assessment either. Communication needs, safety risk, alternatives, effort and the actual course must be considered together.
There is no blanket answer. Section 6 BGStG requires an assessment of the specific burden and reasonable measures. An interpreter may be one option depending on the course and risk, but is not automatically required in every course.
No. A general spoken briefing is not unlawful without further assessment. The relevant issues include actual understanding, the warning content, prior information given to the provider and whether a suitable alternative was possible and reasonable.
Section 6(2) BGStG lists effort, financial capacity, public funding, the time elapsed and the effect of the disadvantage. Group size, the danger and available communication tools are additional facts in a course.
Explain in writing which communication works reliably, which safety information is critical and which signals or assistance you need. Ask for a concrete reply stating who will implement the measure and how warnings will be communicated during the activity.
Section 14 BGStG provides for conciliation at the Social Ministry Service. It can be requested in writing or orally for the minutes and ends with an agreement or confirmation that amicable resolution failed. The requirements and facts should be checked first.
Risk information where a prosthesis or hearing aid is involved.
The distinction between course organisation, instruction and accident liability.
Basics on accident events, evidence and responsibility on the slope.
A different focus: atypical dangers and safety duties.
How to organise evidence and heads of loss after an injury.
Subscribe to legal updates. Receive new articles and legal information from the firm through BRANDaktuellen Rechtsnews.
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.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 660 2407152