skirecht.at
by Brandauer RA
DE EN BKS
Menü
Ski resort operators

Funpark, snowpark and the slope safety duty, where self-responsibility ends

OGH 4 Ob 181/20a, 3 Ob 237/24k and OLG Linz 6 R 105/24i: when the funpark operator is liable and when the park user carries the risk.

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
29 May 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer

Funparks and snowparks are now a fixture of modern ski areas. In liability terms, however, they are not normal slopes but special facilities with their own logic. Anyone who falls there often wonders whether the responsibility lies with the operator or with themselves.

This post, the second in the series "Slope safety 2026", works through the recent case law, from OGH 22 February 2021, 4 Ob 181/20a (wave line) via OGH 22 January 2025, 3 Ob 237/24k (school ski course injury on a snowpark jump) to OLG Linz 12 August 2024, 6 R 105/24i (pyramid jump). The post brings the line to a practical point from the perspective of the injured user.

Audience: injured skiers and snowboarders as well as parents of injured juveniles, especially in the context of school ski courses. From the lawyer's perspective, the question of whether the design of the facility itself co-caused the injury decides the prospects of success.

Frame element and place

What was it, and how was it secured?

Answer one or two questions on the element and its signage. You receive a first assessment from the perspective of the injured user.

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

01 Question 1

Which element in the funpark caused the fall?

Funparks are deliberately shaped by the operator. The more dangerous the element, the higher the safety duty. Pick the option that best fits your situation.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Claim rather difficult, here the funpark user's self-responsibility usually predominates.

Anyone using a recognisably dangerous special facility without respecting the park rules (start small and work up, inspect the element before the jump) carries the responsibility largely themselves under OGH 3 Ob 237/24k. The operator meets his duty when difficulty grade and conduct rules are clearly signposted and the facility is spatially demarcated.

Pursuing a claim against the slope operator is rarely promising in this constellation. It makes sense to check your own accident insurance. For minor users, however, a closer look at supervisory duties is worthwhile, for instance in the context of a school ski course.

02

Claim viable, the design of the facility itself was problematic.

Here the operator's responsibility moves to the foreground. An atypically designed jump, an unmarked drop in the line of a funslope or missing difficulty classification can breach the funpark operator's safety duty. Recent commentary (Cap/Weber, ZVR 2025/203) underlines that special facilities are scrutinised more closely than normal slopes.

Evidence is decisive: photos of the specific element geometry, of the signage (or its absence), of the movement flow of the park route. Expert opinions on funpark design are standard in litigation.

03

Run-out and sight conditions are the central question, claim viable case by case.

With a too short or hidden run-out, the operator breaches his particular safety duty for funparks. OGH 4 Ob 181/20a calls for a demarcation that guarantees an adequate fall area and excludes danger to slope users. The 10-metre marker from the wave-line case is not a rigid measure, but an orientation.

Prospects depend on geometric detail: how long was the run-out, how wide, what speed was achievable on the last wave, how good was the mutual sight to the main slope? Expert evidence is standard.

04

Clear breach of the special safety duty, claim well supported.

The OGH is clear: a funpark must be spatially demarcated so that a responsible slope user cannot unintentionally enter the park. Anyone who, without clear demarcation, enters a park, rides over a jump and falls is significantly better positioned for a claim than the deliberate park user.

Evidence: photos of the transition from main slope to park, markings or missing markings, possibly drone or slope-plan excerpts. The slope plan is often helpful because it documents how the operator himself had planned the park.

Funpark as special area, three requirements

In 4 Ob 181/20a the OGH defines the funpark as a special area, equipped with obstacles or installations which prompt a particular movement pattern different from general slope use. The examples range from "big air" via "halfpipe" to "fun-slopes" and wave lines.

Its status as a special area gives rise to three central requirements on the operator: first, adequate fall area within the facility; second, exclusion of danger to slope users on the adjacent main slope; third, ensuring that a responsible user of the general slope cannot unintentionally enter the park. A clear visual separation is the minimum standard (Stabentheiner ZVR 2016/104).

The duties of the ski area operators are thus extended in the funpark, but not boundless. In 4 Ob 181/20a the OGH rated a 10 m run-out after the last wave with clear sight to the main slope as sufficient. The case shows that every facility must be examined individually.

Jumps 2025: self-responsibility against design duty

The decision OGH 22 January 2025, 3 Ob 237/24k, sharpened the self-responsibility line for snowpark users. A 16-year-old was injured during a school ski course on the largest snowpark jump because, contrary to the "Snowpark Rules" board, he did not start small and did not inspect the jump before the leap. The OGH denied a breach of the operator's safety duty.

Decisive: a difficulty grading of individual obstacles (blue/red/black) is not state of the art in the snowpark. A mandatory start area or speed regulator is not professionally useful either, because concrete factors such as the planned jump, the equipment and the snow consistency are what matters. And supervision at the snowpark entry is not state of the art for lack of frequency.

From the injured user's perspective this means: the bare fact that a jump went wrong does not give rise to liability. Anchors are only the design itself (atypical pyramid, hidden drop in a twin-twister funslope) or gaps in the rule boards. For school ski courses, the teacher's duty of supervision additionally comes into play, a liability regime of its own.

Securing evidence in a funpark accident

The funpark accident has its own evidentiary logic. Central are the element geometry (photo from the front and side, with a scale in the picture), the signage in the approach zone, the operator's park map and the mutual sight to the main slope. A drone photo of the entire facility is gold dust if it can be organised quickly.

For school ski courses and group bookings, the instruction and supervision documents of the school or the ski rental are to be secured. Who explained the park rules before the entry, in which language, with what documentation, can tip the scales.

Expert evidence on funpark design is standard in litigation. Slope grooming logs and weather data for the day are also requested specifically. With icy patches in the critical area (impact or landing zone), temperature progression and slope-cat use are central pointers.

Caution with minors: For school ski courses, alongside the funpark liability of the operator, the supervisory duty of the teacher must also be examined. Both are independent liability tracks that can be pursued in parallel.

Frequently asked

Funpark accident, liability and next steps.

Is a "Snowpark Rules" board enough to exclude operator liability? +

It is an important building block, but not decisive on its own. Under OGH 3 Ob 237/24k it relieves the operator when the board is clearly readable, the park rules are clearly worded and the facility is spatially demarcated. With deficient element design or missing demarcation it does not catch.

My child was injured in the school ski course, who is liable? +

Two tracks in parallel: first, the funpark liability of the ski area operator if the facility has defects. Second, the supervisory duty of the school or the ski course teacher. Both are examined independently and can be cumulative.

What is a "twin twister" and why is it relevant for liability? +

A twin twister is a shaped funslope element where the track splits in two directions after an entry ramp. Commentary critically asks whether the steep edge appearing straight ahead is sufficiently secured against accidental straight passage. Much depends on the concrete layout.

What run-out distance is sufficient under OGH case law? +

There is no rigid measure. In the wave-line case (4 Ob 181/20a), 10 m after the last wave with full sight to the main slope were sufficient because the skier could adapt his speed. With hidden sight lines or higher speeds, the yardstick can be different.

Should I seek legal advice immediately after a funpark fall? +

An early initial assessment is valuable because evidence in the funpark is time-critical. Element geometries are rebuilt, signs taken down, snow cover changes. Even without a full mandate, a lawyer helps secure the right documents immediately.

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