SKIRECHT
DE EN BKS
Menu
Slope accidents

Rope across a ski slope: visibility of a closure after a sideways emergency fall

When is a rope across a ski slope visible enough? The OGH assesses the closure, a sideways emergency fall, avoidability and controlled skiing.

Your personal attorney

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.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
1 October 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

A rope stretched across a ski slope must be recognisable to skiers. A slope closure therefore does not automatically end the legal review. The key question is whether the artificial obstacle was visible in its concrete form and could be avoided by controlled skiing.

In 5 Ob 214/23s, the Austrian Supreme Court considered a sideways emergency fall into a rope stretched around 50 cm above the ground. The findings described a several-centimetre-thick black and yellow rope, six black and yellow chequered flags and a sign immediately beside the closure. The OGH did not object to dismissing the claim because an attentive skier could have recognised the obstacle and stopped in time.

This case concerns the visibility and avoidability of the specific closure device. The general question of skiing on a recognisably closed slope is covered by Skiing a closed slope.

Assess the closure rope

Was the rope visible and avoidable?

Three questions help assess the closure, the visibility of the rope and the significance of the sideways emergency fall.

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

01 Question 1

Was the closure recognisable at the accident location?

A sign or visible closure device can matter. The closure alone does not answer the liability question.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

The closure may not have been sufficiently recognisable.

If the closure itself was not clear, the operator slope safety duty may persist. This is a different starting point from the facts assessed in 5 Ob 214/23s. The relevant questions include the actual view, the position of the sign and whether a reasonable average skier could recognise the closure in time.

Secure photographs of the access route, the sign, the rope and the light conditions. An initial result cannot replace a review of the accident location and the available evidence.

02

The closure rope may itself have been an atypical artificial hazard.

A rope stretched across a slope is an artificially created hazard. If its design, colour, height, attachment or the local visibility made it difficult to see or avoid, a safety duty may arise. The decision does not generally approve every closure rope.

The review focuses on the actual rope thickness, the flags, the sign, the distance between the warning and the rope, and the view from the approach line. Photographs and a precise sketch are therefore especially important.

03

On the OGH findings, the specific danger was recognisable and avoidable.

In 5 Ob 214/23s the rope was around 50 cm above the ground, several centimetres thick and marked black and yellow. Six black and yellow chequered flags were attached, and a customary slope closure sign stood immediately nearby. The OGH found no need to correct the assessment that an attentive skier could recognise the closure and stop before it.

This is not automatic freedom from liability in every accident. It means that visibility, marking and controlled skiing were decisive on the specific findings. The facts at the actual accident location must be compared with the decision.

04

The sideways emergency fall does not decide liability on its own.

A sideways emergency fall does not automatically remove the skier duty to ski in a controlled way. Equally, the fall alone does not establish operator liability. The review must address speed, direction of view, the avoidance movement, reaction time, visibility and the actual possibility of stopping before the rope.

Document the complete movement sequence. Only an overall assessment can show whether the rope was adequately secured, whether a failure to observe contributed, or whether both factors interacted.

Why a closure rope is reviewed despite a slope closure

Under the case law, the slope operator must secure atypical dangers. This includes obstacles that a skier cannot readily recognise or can avoid only with difficulty despite recognising them. Artificially created obstacles must be removed or marked so clearly that they do not create a particular danger for a reasonable average skier, including in poor visibility.

A closure signals that the area is not open for ordinary skiing. It does not by itself answer whether the specific closure device was adequately marked. The general OGH method is explained in Case-by-case assessment of slope safety. This article focuses more narrowly on the connection between the closure, the rope and the skiing movement.

What determines whether the rope is visible

The safety duty depends on the danger as a whole. Rope thickness and colour can increase visibility. Flags or other clear markings make the line of the rope easier to understand. A sign immediately nearby can also explain that the slope is closed. No single feature decides the issue independently of the local circumstances.

The OGH findings described a rope around 50 cm above the ground, several centimetres thick, black and yellow, with six black and yellow chequered flags and a customary sign. The claimant argued that light and surrounding conditions had impaired his view. The OGH relied on the binding findings that no such impairment had been established. In other cases, the sight line, weather and approach direction must be proved separately.

A sideways emergency fall and controlled skiing

Skiers must observe the terrain ahead and adapt their speed to the conditions. The observed space must be large enough to allow an avoidance movement or a stop before a collision hazard. A sideways emergency fall does not automatically remove this duty.

The legal assessment therefore depends on the actual sequence: How fast was the skier travelling? When did the rope first become visible? Was a controlled stop possible? Was there enough room to pass beside the rope? The OGH treated a failure to observe as decisive on the specific findings. That is not a fixed rule for every emergency fall, but an evidential question about the actual movement.

An overall assessment instead of a fixed distance rule

The scope of the slope safety duty depends on the overall relationship between the size and likelihood of the atypical danger and the possibility of preventing it. The conduct of a responsible slope user is considered together with the operator measures that can reasonably be expected according to common standards.

For that reason, 5 Ob 214/23s does not create a general distance rule for closure ropes. A rope with a different colour, height, missing flags, unclear attachment or restricted visibility may lead to a different result. Secure the accident location, markings, visibility and movement sequence before the local situation changes.

The closure alone is not decisive. A visible rope that could be avoided by controlled skiing may exclude operator liability. If the rope was difficult to see or avoid, a safety duty may remain. The concrete accident sequence and the evidence are decisive.

Frequently asked questions

Closure rope, emergency fall and liability.

Is the slope operator liable after an accident with a closure rope? +

It depends on the concrete visibility and avoidability. In the specific case, the OGH did not find a liability basis for a marked rope around 50 cm high with flags. A rope with a different design or poorer visibility may be assessed differently.

Is a sign beside the rope enough? +

A sign is an important feature, but it does not decide the matter alone. The rope, markings, height, location, visibility and room to avoid it must be considered together for a reasonable average skier.

Does a sideways emergency fall automatically change liability? +

No. The fall may be important to the accident sequence, but it does not automatically remove the duty to ski in a controlled way. Reaction time, speed, visibility, room to avoid and the possibility of stopping must be examined.

Does 5 Ob 214/23s apply to every closure rope? +

No. The decision concerns the concrete design and the concrete visibility and skiing situation. It does not generally approve every rope. Differences in marking, attachment, height or visibility may change the assessment.

Which evidence matters after this type of accident? +

Important evidence includes photographs or video from the actual approach line, the rope, flags and signs, weather and light conditions, the impact point, witness accounts and a precise description of the avoidance movement. Secure the evidence before the closure is removed or changed.

Related articles

Further articles on closures and slope safety.

Skiing a closed slope, personal responsibility and liability

The basic question of a recognisable closure and personal responsibility behind it.

Case-by-case assessment of slope safety

The OGH method for visibility, avoidability and reasonable safety measures.

Skiing backwards into a crossing, priority and shared fault

How observation and an avoidance movement are assessed after a slope collision.

Topics
closure ropeslope safety dutysideways emergency fallski accidentslope operatorcompensationOGH

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