Helmet camera and GPS after the ski accident: when a video or GPS data is admissible as evidence and what role data protection and the balancing of interests play.
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.
Helmet cameras and GPS watches are widespread in skiing. After an accident the question arises whether a video or the recorded movement data can serve as evidence. They promise an objective view of speed, track guidance and the course of events, which can decide the fault.
In Austrian civil proceedings the free assessment of evidence under section 272 ZPO applies. The court weighs the evidential value freely and is bound by no rigid rules of evidence. A recording without recognisable third parties is uncritical. If other persons are in the picture, this affects data protection under the GDPR, so that a balancing of interests becomes necessary.
This post explains the admissibility of helmet camera videos and GPS data, the role of the free assessment of evidence and the data protection limits. How the evidence works in the dispute over the apportionment of fault is shown by the post on the apportionment of fault under the FIS rules.
Two short questions on the type of recording and on recognisable third parties place the admissibility.
You already know you want to send a request? Go directly to the contact form.
Helmet camera videos and GPS data can prove the course of events. Their admissibility depends on the content.
Without your own recording it comes down to other means of evidence. Important are witnesses, the rescue report, photos of the accident spot and the medical findings. Recordings of other parties can also play a role. Secure this evidence quickly, because it decides the fault.
Next steps: record witnesses and their contact details, request the rescue report and document the accident spot.
A recording without recognisable third parties and GPS data of your own device are uncritical. In civil proceedings the free assessment of evidence under section 272 ZPO applies, so the court weighs the evidential value freely. GPS data can prove speed and track, a helmet camera video the course of events. Pay attention to the unchanged storage of the original file together with the timestamp.
Next steps: secure the original file unchanged, preserve the metadata and hand the recording to the lawyer for assessment.
If other persons are recognisable, the recording affects their data protection under the GDPR. In Austrian civil proceedings such evidence is in principle admissible, but the court carries out a balancing of interests. The interest in enforcing a legitimate claim is weighed against the personality right of the filmed person. For enforcing a compensation claim this interest often prevails.
Next steps: make the recording accessible only to the lawyer and the court, do not publish it and have the balancing of interests assessed.
Austrian civil procedure knows no rigid rules of evidence. Under section 272 ZPO the court weighs all submitted evidence freely and decides on the course of events according to its conviction. A helmet camera video or a GPS recording can therefore be a valuable means of evidence that makes speed, track guidance and the sequence of the collision visible.
Decisive is the authenticity of the recording. The original should be secured unchanged together with the timestamp and metadata, so that the evidential value is not called into doubt. Pure GPS data of your own device, for instance the recorded speed, is unproblematic in data protection terms, because it does not depict other persons.
As soon as other persons are filmed recognisably, the recording affects their personality rights and data protection under the GDPR. In civil proceedings this does not automatically lead to an exclusion of evidence. Unlawfully obtained evidence is in principle admissible, but the court carries out a balancing of interests.
Weighed against each other are the interest in enforcing a legitimate compensation claim and the personality right of the filmed person. If the point is solely to clarify the course of an accident and to enforce a claim, the interest in evidence often prevails. Anyone who publishes the recording or distributes it on the internet, by contrast, risks the filmed persons own data protection claims. Keep the recording confidential for that reason.
Secure the original and do not publish it. For the evidential value the unchanged original file with timestamp counts. Pass the recording only to lawyer and court. A publication on social networks can trigger the filmed persons own claims and should be avoided.
As a rule yes. In civil proceedings the free assessment of evidence under section 272 ZPO applies. If third parties are recognisable, a balancing of interests decides, which often goes in favour of use when enforcing a legitimate claim.
Yes. GPS data of your own device can prove speed and track and is uncritical in data protection terms, because it does not depict other persons.
For enforcing a claim in court as a rule yes, after a balancing of interests. A publication or further distribution on the internet must be distinguished from this and can be impermissible.
Keep the unchanged original file with timestamp and metadata and do not submit edited versions. This way the evidential value is preserved and the authenticity remains traceable.
That is possible. A recording can also show too high a speed or an own error. The court weighs it freely, so also to the disadvantage of the person recording.
How the course of events determines the quota in a collision.
Why securing evidence in time is so important.
Which claims the proven course of events can support.
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