Ski race and organiser liability: when the organiser breaches the safety duty and when the inherent race risk stays with the participant.
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.
Amateur races, club training and company ski races are popular, yet the closed race course carries its own dangers. Gates, high speed and a hard slope surface lead to severe falls. If a participant is injured, the question arises whether the organiser is liable or whether the race risk stays with the athlete.
The organiser of a race or training bears a safety duty for the course they create. They must set the course properly, pad dangerous obstacles and secure the run-out. If they breach this duty, they are liable under sections 1293 ff ABGB. The inherent sport risk of the competition, by contrast, stays with the participant.
This post explains the safety duty of the organiser, the distinction from the inherent sport risk and the role of the registration as a contract. How slope safety works outside of races is shown by the post on the case-by-case assessment of slope safety.
Two short questions on the setting of the accident and on the safety duty place the organiser liability.
You already know you want to send a request? Go directly to the contact form.
At an organised race or training, special duties of the organiser apply, unlike in free slope operation.
Without an organised race or training there is no organiser liability. The general FIS rules and the slope safety duty of the slope operator apply. Decisive is then whether another slope user made an error or whether an atypical danger on the slope was unsecured.
Next steps: clarify the course of events, check a possible slope safety duty and document the fault of a third party.
Anyone who organises a race or a training operation bears a safety duty for the closed course. This includes the proper setting of the course, the padding of dangerous obstacles and the securing of the run-out. If the accident rests on a breach of this duty, the organiser is liable under sections 1293 ff ABGB. With the registration for the race contractual protective duties additionally arise.
Next steps: photograph the course securing and the defects, secure the regulations and the registration and have the breach of the safety duty assessed.
Anyone who takes part in a race assumes the inherent sport risk of the competition. A fall from an own riding error or the heightened danger of high race speed falls into personal responsibility. The organiser is not liable for every fall but only for the breach of their safety duty. Here often only the own accident insurance helps.
Next steps: check your own accident insurance, document the course of events and clarify whether a securing defect did contribute after all.
Anyone who holds a ski race or an organised training operation creates a special situation of danger and must control it. The safety duty requires that the course is set properly, that dangerous obstacles such as pillars, lift supports or fences are padded and that the run-out area is secured. The course inspection before the start also belongs to this.
If the organiser breaches this duty and the accident rests on it, they are liable under sections 1293 ff ABGB for the loss. With the registration for the race a contract regularly comes about, which establishes contractual protective duties. The standard depends on what a careful organiser must arrange to avoid recognisable dangers.
Not every fall in a race leads to liability of the organiser. Anyone who takes part in a competition assumes the inherent sport risk connected with it. The high speed, the hard surface and the possibility of an own riding error belong to the nature of racing. For this general danger the organiser is not liable.
Decisive is therefore the distinction between a securing defect and the realised race risk. If both sides contributed, for instance a securing defect and an own riding error, a quota can be formed under section 1304 ABGB. How this apportionment works in general is explained by the post on the apportionment of fault under the FIS rules.
Obstacles at the course must be padded. Pillars, lift supports and fences in the area of the race course are among the typical sources of danger. If the padding is missing at a recognisably dangerous spot, that speaks for a breach of the safety duty. Photograph the spot before it is changed.
No. The organiser is liable only for the breach of their safety duty, for instance for an unsecured obstacle. The inherent race risk and an own riding error stay with the participant.
The proper setting of the course, the padding of dangerous obstacles such as pillars or lift supports, the securing of the run-out and the course inspection before the start.
Yes. With the registration a contract regularly comes about, which establishes contractual protective duties of the organiser besides the general liability.
Blanket liability disclaimers are only of limited effect. For gross negligence and intentional breaches of duty the liability cannot be effectively excluded.
If a securing defect of the organiser and an own riding error work together, the loss is shared proportionally under section 1304 ABGB. The quota depends on the weight of the contributions.
When a danger spot must be secured and when not.
How the quota is formed with mutual fault.
Which duties organiser and school bear in the course.
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