skirecht.at
by Brandauer RA
DE EN BKS
Menü
Ski touring & backcountry

Winch cable and ski-tourer evening, when the slope operator is still liable after slope closing

OGH 5 Ob 91/22a on the late-returner case law at ski-tourer evenings: warning sign, closure and warning light suffice. When a claim still works.

Your personal attorney

Mag. Christopher Angerer

Your lawyer for ski piste and mountain sports law

Ski accidents are complex and emotional. One lawyer you know, from the first question to the courtroom.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
31 May 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer

Ski-tourer evenings are a modern ski-area offering with high attractiveness but also their own legal complexity. With the decision of 8 November 2022, 5 Ob 91/22a, the OGH clearly extended the late-returner case law to the period after the ski-tourer evening ends. What does this mean for injured ski tourers?

This post, the fourth in the series "Slope safety 2026", works through the line, sorts it by time and marking situation and shows the typical constellations from the perspective of the injured user. Audience: injured ski tourers after collision with a winch cable or other grooming installation.

Practical finding: the transition between slope operation, ski-tourer evening and slope grooming is legally sensitive. Anyone on the slope in the wrong phase who gets hurt has a different starting position than someone injured during operating hours. The line is at heart a question of recognisable warning signalling.

Place the time

When, how and where?

Answer one or two questions on the time and the safety situation. You receive a first assessment in light of decision 5 Ob 91/22a.

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

01 Question 1

When did the accident occur?

Slope closing is the central caesura. Within operating hours the full slope safety duty applies; afterwards it is significantly reduced.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Claim very promising. Winch grooming during operating hours is the exception.

During operating hours the slope operator must not in principle carry out winch grooming. A steel cable strung across the slope while regular slope users are out is an atypical hazard in the classical sense. The breach of duty is regularly to be affirmed.

First steps: obtain the slope-rescue protocol, clarify the slope-closure status at the fall time (was the slope really open under the operator's announcement?), secure the lift ticket as proof of contract.

02

After slope closing the strict late-returner case law applies. Claim rather difficult.

The late returner is bound by case law to particular care. He must reckon not only with unremoved natural obstacles but also with work on the slope that can only be carried out outside operating hours. A claim against the slope operator is only viable in exceptional cases.

An exception comes into play when the late returner was not informed of ongoing work, for instance if warning signs were missing or a slope closure was not recognisable. Your own accident insurance pays out regardless of fault.

03

Breach of safety duty usually established. Claim promising.

On a ski-tourer evening the operator released the slope for ski-tourer use. A safety duty close to general slope use therefore applies again. A winch cable strung across without visible marking is an atypical hazard for the night-time tourer.

Evidence: marking situation on the day of the accident (or its absence), lighting conditions, ski-tourer announcement, slope grooming logs. Legal assessment with good prospects.

04

Safety duty met. Claim only in exceptional cases viable.

A clearly marked and illuminated winch cable relieves the operator if the marking could be perceived in time by an attentive tourer. Anchors for a claim arise only with particular circumstances such as a marking placed unlawfully after a crest or in a curve area.

05

Claim not promising. OGH 5 Ob 91/22a supports the late returner's self-responsibility.

The OGH (5 Ob 91/22a) confirmed the late-returner line also for the ski-tourer evening: anyone entering the closed area despite warning sign, barrier and lit warning light carries the risk in principle himself. A duty to additionally mark the winch cable itself was expressly denied by the OGH.

Your own accident insurance is the economically relevant first port of call. Pursuing a claim against the slope operator is rarely successful in this constellation.

06

Claim viable. Missing warning is the central anchor.

Where warning sign, barrier and warning light were entirely missing, the late-returner case law does not apply in full force. The tourer must reckon with grooming but not with an entirely unsecured steel cable across the slope. A pursuit is promising here.

Evidence: photos of the transition between the gastronomy area and the slope, marking situation, lighting. Witness statements (other tourers) are very valuable here.

The late-returner case law in the tourer context

The OGH late-returner case law holds: anyone who only skis down after slope closing is bound to particular care. He must reckon that nothing more is being done about natural obstacles, and he must also reckon with work on the slope that can only or sufficiently intensively be carried out outside operating hours.

In decision 5 Ob 91/22a the OGH extended this line to the ski-tourer evening. The claimant, an experienced ski tourer, collided after the end of the ski-tourer window on a re-closed slope with the winch cable of a snow groomer. The lower courts dismissed the action; the OGH confirmed. Decisive: warning signs, closure of the groomed slope from 22:30 and a lit warning light directly in the closed area sufficed.

A duty to additionally mark the winch cable itself was expressly denied by the OGH. Decisive was that the claimant knew the local customs in the ski area in concrete terms and was aware of the closure time. This subjective component can make the difference in the individual case.

Practical line for injured tourers

The legal line can be condensed into three points. First, the time decides everything. Within operating hours a high safety duty applies; on the official ski-tourer evening a reduced but substantial safety duty; afterwards a strict self-responsibility yardstick. Second, the warning signalling at the transition is decisive. Anyone ignoring warning sign, closure and warning light can rarely successfully invoke a breach of duty by the slope operator. Third, the tourer's subjective knowledge of the local customs in the ski area works to his disadvantage.

Evidence after an accident: photos of the transition from hut/gastronomy to the slope, of warning signs and closures (or their absence), position of the fall, time of day, light conditions. The ski area's ski-tourer announcement (homepage screenshot, postings) and where appropriate statements of the hut staff.

Your own private accident insurance is especially valuable for ski-touring because it pays out independently of fault. In-depth treatment in the ski-touring law topic area.

Note: The hut operator may also bear his own duty where he has served guests beyond the official slope closing. With gastronomy beyond the ski-tourer time, an independent liability track is possible.

Frequently asked

Winch cable, ski-tourer evening, slope closing.

I did not see the slope closure, am I still partly liable? +

Decisive is the objective recognisability of the closure. A hidden or inadequate closure can take the sharpness out of the late-returner case law. Subjective knowledge of the local customs (regular guest, frequent tours) works against the tourer however. A precise record of the closure and warning situation is decisive.

Does the lift ticket play a role as proof of contract for ski tourers? +

For a classic ski tourer not using the lift, the transport contract is missing. Liability then typically shifts into the tortious track such as the path-keeper liability under Section 1319a ABGB. At least gross negligence of the slope operator or his people is required.

Does the late-returner case law also apply during the day when the slope is regularly closed? +

Yes, the core idea also applies during the day with a declared slope closure such as avalanche danger or grooming. Anyone skiing a recognisably closed slope carries the risk in principle himself.

What should I do immediately after a ski-tourer accident? +

Call slope rescue or the emergency number 144, note the protocol number, secure photos of the accident site, talk to witnesses. Within a few days at the latest, an initial legal assessment, because closure and warning situations cannot be reconstructed after a short time.

Does my insurance status play a role in the choice of lawyer? +

Yes, a legal-protection policy with a sport module can defuse the cost question. Austrian Ski Federation memberships and Alpine Club memberships also often contain a legal protection for ski-touring accidents. These modules are to be clarified at the first consultation.

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