Snow cannons at the slope edge, the paradigm shift to a padding duty

The new thesis I.L.4 (ZVR 2023, 469) requires mechanical securing through padding for mobile snow-making devices on a support frame in principle. Pure optical securing through stick nets is now only sufficient in justified exceptions. Missing padding despite suitable construction therefore fulfils the liability-relevant security defect.

Evidence: photos of the device (front, side, with scale), position on the slope, steepness, sight conditions, stick net location. The device's model designation (type plate) and the ski area's documentation of its padding practice are central in litigation.

Functional padding on the support frame largely relieves the slope operator. Remaining anchors are the height of the padding (usually possible up to 1.2 to 1.4 m), the impact speed and the severity of the injury. For very serious head injuries a careful examination of the padding height and the supplementary stick net is worthwhile.

Your own accident insurer and health insurer are the first ports of call. Pursuing a claim against the slope operator is only economically sensible with clear pointers to a breach of duty beyond the padding itself.

The old practice of pure stick-net solutions has, since the new thesis I.L.4 (ZVR 2023, 469), no longer counted as sufficient for tall mobile snow-making devices. Stick nets have a primarily optical character and only a very weak catch effect. They supplement the padding but do not replace it.

Claim in this constellation usually viable. Evidentiary effort moderate because the 2023 line is clearly documented and the construction type of the device (tall support frame, padable) is established in litigation.

Padding that is iced, torn or loose cannot fulfil its protective purpose. The safety duty is breached. The slope operator's duty includes not only initial mounting but also regular maintenance and control.

Evidence is important: immediate close-up photos of the padding condition; request maintenance logs in litigation.

Snow lances are the classic example of an artificial massive obstacle in the dedicated ski area (RIS-Justiz RS0023485, OGH 1 Ob 63/11p). Missing sheathing is a clear breach of duty. Prospects are high.

Secure all detail photos of the body and height. Slope-rescue protocol and lawyer letter to slope operator and liability insurer are the next steps.

A properly sheathed snow lance relieves the slope operator. Anchors for a claim only exist with particular circumstances such as an unusual position directly after a crest, a flawed choice of location in particularly steep terrain or deficient maintenance. A brief legal assessment classifies whether this constellation is present.

The new thesis I.L.4 is unequivocal: low-built devices that cannot be padded by construction must not be placed in particularly steep slope sections. Mere visibility or purely optical securing is not enough here. Setting up such a device anyway breaches the duty.

Evidence: document slope steepness (photo with comparison object, GPS), device construction, height, missing padding option. Expert opinions on steepness are typical in litigation.

For older low-built devices that cannot be padded by construction, the new thesis I.L.4 requires stick-net securing at an appropriate distance. In flatter terrain this is the minimum requirement, and the yardstick remains stricter than without mobile devices at all. The device remains an artificial massive obstacle; a claim is possible but depends on the concrete configuration.

Thesis I.L.4 expressly covers the supply installations belonging to the snow-making devices: hoses, connector boxes, generators, water and power lines. They are to be secured as artificial obstacles in the dedicated ski area. A crossing line, an unsecured connector box in the slope area or an exposed generator regularly meet the breach of duty.