Ski resort operators

Skiing a closed slope, personal responsibility and operator liability

Skiing a closed slope: where the slope safety duty ends, when personal responsibility applies and when the operator exceptionally answers.

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

18 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

A shortcut across a closed slope, one last run on a descent that is already shut, it seems harmless but can have considerable legal consequences. Behind a closure grooming machines often work, winch cables are tensioned or avalanche control is being prepared. Anyone skiing there moves outside the secured area.

The operator slope safety duty generally ends at a clearly recognisable closure. Within the marked and open slope the winter sportsperson may rely on the usual safety measures. Behind the closure, by contrast, personal responsibility comes to the fore, and a contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB can heavily reduce or wholly exclude the compensation.

This post concerns the recognisably closed, that is marked, slope. Where the issue is open terrain beyond the slope, that is covered in the post on the off-piste descent and the end of slope safety.

Closure and danger

Who is liable when you ski a closed slope?

Two short questions on the recognisability of the closure and the danger that materialised place the liability.

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

01 Question 1

Was the slope recognisably closed at the time of the accident?

The operator safety duty ends where a closure is clearly and recognisably marked.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

Closure not recognisable, the safety duty may persist.

If the closure was not clearly recognisable, the operator slope safety duty may persist. Anyone skiing a seemingly open slope may rely on the usual safety measures. Whether the marking was adequate is a question of the individual case and the evidence. Photos of the access and the signage are central here.

Next steps: photograph the access, the signage and the visibility and snow conditions, secure witnesses and have the safety situation assessed by a lawyer.

Clearly closed, relevant danger, personal responsibility to the fore.

Anyone skiing a recognisably closed slope where the very danger the closure was for materialises acts at their own risk. Behind a clear closure the operator may deploy grooming machines, winch cables or avalanche control. Compensation is then regularly excluded or heavily reduced by a predominant contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB.

Next steps: a realistic assessment of the high contributory fault, a check of your own accident insurance and clarification of possible criminal consequences.

Closed, but atypical danger, a residual operator responsibility is conceivable.

Even behind a closure a residual responsibility can exist where a quite different, atypical danger unconnected with the closure materialises. The person skiing a closed slope must reckon with the closure-typical dangers, but not with every conceivable trap. This is a borderline case that must be examined closely.

Next steps: document the specific danger and its connection with the closure, secure evidence and weigh the liability question with a lawyer.

All recommendations at a glance

Closure not recognisable, the safety duty may persist.

Next steps: photograph the access, the signage and the visibility and snow conditions, secure witnesses and have the safety situation assessed by a lawyer.

Clearly closed, relevant danger, personal responsibility to the fore.

Next steps: a realistic assessment of the high contributory fault, a check of your own accident insurance and clarification of possible criminal consequences.

Closed, but atypical danger, a residual operator responsibility is conceivable.

Next steps: document the specific danger and its connection with the closure, secure evidence and weigh the liability question with a lawyer.

Where the slope safety duty ends

The slope operator has a slope safety duty. It must protect the open slope from atypical dangers that a winter sportsperson need not reckon with. But this duty reaches only as far as the organised ski area. At a clearly recognisable closure the required safety ends, because here the operator signals that the area is not released for use.

What matters is the recognisability of the closure. It must be made clear by signs, closure tape, crosses or shut barriers. If the marking has vanished, fallen over or is unclear, the winter sportsperson may take the slope to be open. The safety duty can then persist. The method by which the safety duty is assessed in the individual case is explored in the post on the case-by-case assessment of the slope safety duty.

Personal responsibility and contributory fault behind the closure

Anyone skiing a recognisably closed slope acts at their own risk. If the very danger the closure was for materialises, compensation is regularly excluded. Often there is at least a predominant contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB that heavily reduces the compensation. Added to this are possible criminal consequences where others are endangered by the skiing.

It can be different where behind the closure a quite different, atypical danger materialises that has nothing to do with the reason for the closure. Such borderline cases are rare and must be examined closely. How fault quotas are formed in general is shown in the post on the apportionment of fault under the FIS rules.

Take a closure seriously. Behind a closed slope grooming machines may work with winch cables. A tensioned winch cable is barely visible in the dark and life-threatening. Anyone skiing a closed slope risks not only the loss of claims but also the most serious injuries.

Frequent questions

The closed slope in practice.

May I ski a closed slope at all? +

A recognisably closed slope is not released for use. Anyone skiing it nonetheless acts at their own risk and may also face criminal responsibility where others are endangered. The operator generally does not answer behind the closure.

Is the operator liable if I fall on a closed slope? +

Generally not, where the closure was clearly recognisable and the very closure-typical danger materialised. Liability can only arise by way of exception, for instance with an unclear marking or with a quite different, atypical danger.

What if the closure was barely recognisable? +

Then the safety duty can persist. Anyone skiing a seemingly open slope may rely on the usual safety measures. Whether the marking was sufficient is decided by the individual case. Photos of the access and the signage are central here.

What role does contributory fault play? +

Anyone skiing despite a recognisable closure regularly bears a predominant contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB. Even if a residual operator responsibility exceptionally existed, the compensation would be heavily reduced by it.

What is the difference from the off-piste descent? +

The closed slope is marked but shut terrain within the ski area. The off-piste descent, by contrast, leads into open, unsecured terrain beyond the slope. Neither area is subject to the safety duty, but the legal standards differ in detail.