skirecht.at
by Brandauer RA
DE EN BKS
Menü
Focus area · Ski law

Ski resort operator liability.

Anyone who opens a ski area to paying guests assumes one of the most concrete catalogues of civil-law duties in Austrian practice. We assess accidents that happen on, next to or during the operation of a prepared piste, for injured skiers and for operators and their insurers.

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
Assessment

Where do you stand right now?

This short assessment maps your role and your incident to the right deep-dive section. It does not replace legal advice.

Already know you want to send a request? Skip directly to the contact form.

01 Question 1

What is your role in this matter?

Three typical constellations, pick the one that matches best.

All paths in overview

Every answer in one place.

01

Atypical hazard, § 1319a ABGB applies against the operator.

Where the hazard (rock, ice, unsecured edge, exposed steel masts) appeared on a classified piste, the operator is liable as the path-keeper under § 1319a ABGB. The OGH practice on commercial piste opening tightens the standard of care.

Securing evidence in the first 72 hours is decisive: photos of the spot before nightly grooming, slope number, witness contacts. Keep the first notification to the insurer factual, with no admission of fault.

Read more: operator duty matrix →
02

Grooming-vehicle collision, combined claim under EKHG, § 1319a, § 88 StGB.

A collision with a snowcat, piste basher or snowmobile triggers three parallel claim tracks in practice: strict keeper liability under EKHG, path-keeper liability under § 1319a ABGB, and criminal proceedings against the driver or piste service manager under § 88 StGB.

Where the winch is in operation or grooming runs in daytime without a spotter, the OGH typically rates the fault as gross. The pain-and-suffering claim under § 1325 ABGB is rarely contested, apportionment under § 1304 ABGB is the battleground.

Read more: from the accident to the VbVG procedure →
03

Snow-making installation or fixed obstacle, § 1319 ABGB work-keeper liability.

A collision with a snow cannon, hydrant or lift mast falls under § 1319 ABGB: the work-keeper is liable wherever the padding is missing or fails to cover the entire collision zone. The OGH practice (2 Ob 28/09z, 8 Ob 141/07k) is strict.

Contributory fault on the skier is recognised only where visibility was unusually clear. Evidence: photograph the obstacle including padding status, distance to the line of descent and signage.

Read more: operator duty matrix →
04

Closed area, contributory fault under § 1304 ABGB is regularly high.

Anyone who passes a properly marked piste closure (X-barrier, yellow banner, "piste closed" sign) bears contributory fault between 75 and 100 percent under § 1304 ABGB. The OGH requires, however, that the closure was actually visible on the slope, a defective closure flips the apportionment.

The legal review therefore starts with photographic evidence of the closure at the time of the accident and the closure log of the piste service.

05

Severe piste accident, § 88 StGB and VbVG run in parallel.

After a piste accident with severe injuries or fatalities, the prosecutor routinely opens investigations against the grooming-vehicle driver and the piste service manager (§ 88 StGB) and a VbVG procedure against the operator GmbH or AG. The defence must be coordinated from day one.

Diversion under §§ 18 f. VbVG is possible where the post-accident response is well documented and avoids the VbVG entry and the public hearing. Precondition: demonstrable organisational improvement.

Read more: from the accident to the VbVG procedure →
06

Cableway authority penalty, appeal to the BVwG is available.

The cableway authority at the BMK can impose administrative fines of up to roughly 50,000 EUR per installation for breaches of SeilbG 2003 (§ 127 SeilbG). The addressee is the responsible representative appointed under § 9 VStG or, without a delegation, the executive management.

Appeal to the Federal Administrative Court is possible within four weeks. Strategically: do not damage parallel criminal proceedings under § 88 StGB by concessions made in the administrative file.

07

Season pass refunds, § 1447 ABGB and KSchG decide.

On a complete official closure, § 1447 ABGB applies (frustration of contract), the consideration is forfeited and a pro-rata refund is owed. On a mere reduction in capacity (snow shortage on parts of the area) the T&C position is decisive.

T&C clauses that exclude any refund flat-out are invalid under §§ 6, 9 KSchG. A pragmatic, tiered refund clause with clear consumer information is the only robust defence line.

Read more: operator duty matrix →
08

Occupational accident in the piste service, § 333 ASVG breach is in play.

For occupational accidents involving snowcat drivers, piste rescuers or blasting officers, the system channels claims first into the AUVA. The employer privilege under § 333 ASVG protects the operator, as long as gross negligence is absent.

Where organisational gross negligence is documented (missing training, missing snowcat maintenance, missing avalanche commission decision), OGH practice breaks the privilege. The AHVB cover then becomes acute.

Read more: insurance and recourse →
09

Coverage question commercial liability, watch the standard exclusions.

AHVB/EHVB standard terms exclude intent, administrative penalties and VbVG fines. Gross negligence is covered, often with quota reduction. Late notification under § 158c VersVG can leave the insurer free from performance.

For recourse under § 67 VersVG and § 332 ASVG, the insurer leads the file, clarify the mandate split with operator counsel to avoid contradictory positions.

10

Defence against piste-accident claims, § 1304 ABGB apportionment is the lever.

The defence of the operator after the claimant has established a base case typically pivots on apportionment under § 1304 ABGB: FIS breaches by the skier (speed, overtaking, distance), awareness of markings, helmet duty under regional law.

Evidence strategy: piste service log, avalanche commission protocol, signage plan, grooming vehicle maintenance records. What is documented prevails in court.

Read more: operator duty matrix →
11

VbVG procedure against the corporate body, diversion or trial.

In a VbVG procedure against the operator GmbH or AG the strategic choice is made early: diversion under §§ 18 f. VbVG (cash payment, conditions and documented organisational improvement) or a defence line that contests the organisational shortcomings.

Economic consequences of a public hearing: fine of up to 1.8 million EUR per offence, public VbVG entry, knock-on effects in the next AHVB tender.

Read more: from the accident to the VbVG procedure →
Operator duty matrix

Which duty applies where, and who is on the hook.

Six core duties of the ski resort operator with the relevant provision, the addressee inside the corporate structure and the consequence of a breach. The highlighted row (duty of care on the piste) is the most frequent battleground in civil proceedings.

Concession, operations management, duty of care, transport contract, occupational safety and corporate criminal liability, six duties with provision and sanction side by side.
Duty Provision Addressee in the company Consequence of breach
Cableway operator concession §§ 19 ff. SeilbG 2003
Concession requirement 		Management of the operator GmbH/AG Withdrawal under § 31 SeilbG 2003, shutdown of operations, administrative penalty.
Appointment of responsible operations manager § 15 SeilbG 2003
Personal appointment 		Concession holder (with BMK notification) Administrative penalty plus personal guarantor position under § 2 StGB for the operations manager.
Duty of care on the piste (control, marking, closure) § 1319a ABGB
Path-keeper liability 		Piste service manager + avalanche commission Pain and suffering under § 1325 ABGB, parallel § 88 StGB against the responsible individuals. , Standard pattern after a piste accident with injuries, the central liability lane for the operator.
Transport contract / season pass (T&C, refunds) §§ 864a ABGB · 6 KSchG
T&C review 		Sales / marketing leadership Invalid clauses plus refund under § 1447 ABGB on official closure.
Occupational safety in the piste service ASchG · ASVG
Employer duties 		Employer + delegated safety officer Breach of § 333 ASVG privilege on gross negligence, full damages owed to injured staff.
Corporate criminal liability § 3 VbVG
Corporate fine 		The corporate body itself (GmbH/AG) Fine up to 1.8 million EUR per offence, reputational damage, knock-on effects with insurer.

Sources: §§ 15, 19, 31, 107, 127 SeilbG 2003; § 1319a ABGB; §§ 864a, 1325, 1447 ABGB; § 6 KSchG; ASchG; §§ 332, 333 ASVG; § 3 VbVG; § 9 VStG.

Insurance, recourse, sanctions

What the commercial liability policy covers, and what it does not.

Six claim categories after a serious piste accident. The first three run through the AHVB/EHVB commercial liability cover, the last three the operator must absorb out of own funds.

Pain and suffering, social insurer recourse, VbVG fine and administrative penalty, claimants, range of amounts and coverage status side by side.
Claim category Claimant Typical amount AHVB cover?
§ 1325 ABGB
Pain and suffering, guest 		Injured skier / dependants 100-400 EUR per pain-day, plus pension where lasting consequences. Yes , Standard track of commercial liability, fully covered up to the policy limit.
§ 332 ASVG
Social insurer recourse 		AUVA / OeGK / PVA Healthcare, rehabilitation and pension; in tetraplegia cases lifetime seven figures. Yes , The AHVB insurer settles the claim with the social insurance carrier.
§ 67 VersVG
Recourse by injured party private insurer 		Private liability insurer Healthcare costs and lost earnings, often after deductible. Yes
§ 333 ASVG breach
Severe occupational accident 		Injured employee / dependants On gross negligence: full damages including pain and suffering and pension. Conditional , AHVB excludes intent; gross negligence is covered, often subject to a quota reduction.
§ 3 VbVG
Corporate fine 		Republic of Austria (federal treasury) Up to 1.8 million EUR per offence (daily rate x number of rates). No , Criminal sanction, never covered by commercial liability insurance.
VStG · § 127 SeilbG
Cableway authority penalty 		BMK / BVwG Up to roughly 50,000 EUR per installation; on repetition operational restrictions. No , Administrative penalties are uninsurable as a sanction (standard exclusion in AHVB).

Sources: §§ 1325, 1326 ABGB; §§ 332, 333 ASVG; § 67 VersVG; § 3 VbVG; AHVB/EHVB standard terms 2020. Amounts are typical practice values, not guaranteed figures.

From the piste accident to the VbVG procedure

Five phases the operator runs through.

From the minute of the accident to diversion or trial, the five phases that a serious piste accident triggers for the operator, with the relevant provisions and the parallel role of the insurer.

  1. 01
    Minute of the accident
    Immediately

    Mountain rescue, police, piste closure

    Alert piste rescue, call the police whenever a person is injured, close the affected section immediately, capture photographic evidence before nightly grooming.

    The piste service documents the accident with the slope number, photos of the marking and signage, witness contacts and the grooming vehicle log. The physical traces vanish at the latest with the next nightly grooming run, what is not on the photos taken in the first hour cannot be reconstructed in any later civil or criminal proceedings.

    Where personal injury is suspected, the police must be called in under § 100 SeilbG 2003 and the regional law. Withholding the call is treated as evidence of organisational fault.

    Legal basis: § 100 SeilbG 2003 · FIS rule 9 · Regional ski law

  2. 02
    First 24 hours
    First report

    Insurer notification and internal report

    Inform the commercial liability insurer within 24 hours (§ 158c VersVG). Internal safety report to management. No admission of fault to the injured party.

    The AHVB/EHVB standard terms require an immediate notice of loss. Late or incomplete notifications can endanger cover, under § 158c VersVG the insurer can be released from performance where the breach of the notice duty caused additional loss.

    In parallel: an internal safety report from the piste service manager to executive management. This report becomes the key document in any later VbVG procedure, it must state the facts soberly without pre-emptive allocation of fault.

    Legal basis: § 158c VersVG · AHVB/EHVB 2020 Art. 8

  3. 03
    First weeks
    Criminal track

    Criminal investigation under § 88 StGB, defence counsel appointed

    The prosecutor opens an investigation for negligent bodily harm (§ 88 StGB) against the grooming-vehicle driver and the piste service manager. File access through defence counsel; strategy between contesting and active repentance.

    The public prosecutor at the competent regional court routinely opens an investigation after every piste accident with injuries. The addressees are usually the directly acting employee (grooming-vehicle driver, blasting officer) and the piste service manager as the organisational guarantor under § 2 StGB.

    Recommendation: a unified defence for both accused, coordinated with executive management. Premature acknowledgment of fault by an individual employee can substantially raise the cost of the parallel civil case.

    Legal basis: § 88 StGB · § 2 StGB · §§ 49 ff. StPO

  4. 04
    Following months
    Civil track

    Civil action by the injured party, social insurer recourse

    Action at the regional court of the place of accident (§ 92a JN), social insurer recourse (§ 332 ASVG), parallel negotiation with the AHVB insurer over an out-of-court settlement.

    The injured guest typically sues at the regional court of the place of accident (Salzburg, Innsbruck, Feldkirch, Klagenfurt, Leoben). Up to 15,000 EUR the district court is competent. In parallel, the social insurer files recourse under § 332 ASVG, in cases of paraplegia or skull-brain trauma this claim reaches seven-figure amounts.

    The commercial liability insurer leads the out-of-court negotiations. An early settlement frequently closes the parallel criminal case as well (restitution as a sentencing factor).

    Legal basis: § 92a JN · §§ 1325, 1326 ABGB · § 332 ASVG

  5. 05
    VbVG phase
    Sanction

    Diversion or trial against the corporate body

    Where the documented response to the accident is solid, diversion under § 19 VbVG (cash payment plus conditions) is possible. Otherwise full trial with a fine of up to 1.8 million EUR per offence.

    The VbVG procedure against the operator GmbH or AG is now routinely opened after serious piste accidents with fatalities. Strategically, the early decision is whether a diversion under §§ 18 f. VbVG (cash payment, conditions and documented improvement) makes sense, or whether the defence line will deny organisational shortcomings.

    Diversion avoids the VbVG entry and the public hearing but presupposes a clean post-accident analysis and demonstrable organisational improvement.

    Legal basis: § 3 VbVG · §§ 18 f. VbVG · AHVB exclusion

Legal framework: § 1319a ABGB and the piste-keeper duty of care

The civil-law liability of a ski resort operator in Austria is anchored in the path-keeper liability under § 1319a ABGB (Austrian Civil Code). That provision regulates the liability of the person in charge of a path or way towards those who use it; a prepared ski piste is treated by the settled case law of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) as a path within the meaning of that rule. On its face, § 1319a ABGB limits liability to gross fault, but the OGH has narrowed that limitation decisively for commercially opened descents. Anyone who sells lift passes and invites the general public onto a groomed piste owes a heightened duty of care that approaches the ordinary standard under §§ 1293 et seq. ABGB and leaves only a small residual category of hazards that are so minor or so obvious that the skier must simply reckon with them.

Alongside the civil code, the operator is bound by a dense net of public-law rules. The SeilbG 2003 (Austrian Cableway Act 2003) governs the concession to run a cableway undertaking and attaches the operation of the associated pistes to the undertaking; § 100 SeilbG 2003 and the regulations of the Federal Ministry of Climate Action (BMK) set minimum standards for marking, closure, rescue and documentation. The regional piste regulations, Salzburger Schilandesgesetz, Tiroler Schigesetz and the cognate rules in Carinthia, Styria, Vorarlberg and Lower Austria, supplement the federal regime with concrete duties on the piste service and the avalanche commission. A breach of any of these public-law norms is treated in civil proceedings as a breach of a protective statute within the meaning of § 1311 ABGB and reverses the ordinary burden of proof to the operator.

Contractually, the sale of a lift pass gives rise to a transport contract that obliges the operator both to carry the guest safely and to make the prepared pistes usable for the duration of the pass. The OGH classifies the pass-holder as a consumer within the meaning of the KSchG (Consumer Protection Act); exclusion clauses on the back of the ticket or in the general terms of carriage are pushed back by §§ 864a, 879 ABGB and § 6 para. 1 subpara. 9 KSchG, and cannot relieve the operator of liability for gross negligence or intent. Claims under the transport contract are subject to the three-year limitation period under § 1489 ABGB from knowledge of the damage and the liable party; in cases of severe injury and criminal conduct, the thirty-year period can come into play. The interaction between the contractual duty, the protective statute and the general duty of care is the frame within which every claim against a ski resort operator is assessed.

Piste preparation: grooming, snow-making and atypical hazards

The core duty of the resort operator is to make the piste usable and free from atypical hazards for the duration of the opening hours. Usable, in the language of the OGH, means prepared to a degree that a skier of the relevant piste classification can descend under reasonable exertion; free from atypical hazards means that no danger is present that the skier does not have to expect on a piste of that colour. The distinction is the decisive one in every piste-accident case. A rock that protrudes in the middle of a flat descent is atypical. A patch of ice after a warm afternoon on a north-facing traverse is not. An exposed grooming-track edge with a one-metre drop is atypical. A mogul field on a black piste is not. The casuistry is dense and regional, OGH 7 Ob 90/18d, OGH 2 Ob 107/20s and OGH 6 Ob 215/22k mark out the frontier.

Grooming itself is owed on a daily basis, with the intensity driven by piste classification, expected visitor numbers and the weather. Nightly preparation by snowcat is standard on blue and red descents; sections that cannot be groomed mechanically have to be clearly identifiable as such. Where the operator relies on snow-making to open a piste early in the season or to maintain it through a warm spell, the snow cannon masts, hydrants, hoses and control boxes become artificial obstacles on the descent, all of which have to be secured with padded covers, warning flags and minimum distances from the skiable corridor. A collision with a snow-cannon that was not padded regularly triggers full operator liability under § 1319 ABGB (liability of the owner of a work), because the installation is a work erected by the operator and the burden of proof for the required diligence lies with him.

The morning inspection is the evidentiary backbone of every piste operator. A dated, signed log of the first piste-service patrol, the weather observation and the avalanche-commission decision is what separates a defensible case from a hopeless one. Where the inspection log is missing, OGH case law draws the inference that the inspection was not carried out; the subsequent accident is then attributed to the operator without further proof of the specific hazard. Resort operators in Salzburg, Tyrol and Vorarlberg increasingly document the inspection digitally, with GPS tracks of the patrol skier, timestamped photos of the piste condition and an archived copy of the avalanche report. A complete and consistent log not only defends the case on the merits; it also shortens the out-of-court negotiation with the insurer because the liability adjuster can assess the file quickly.

Marking, signage and piste closure

A ski resort owes its guests visible orientation. The piste must be unambiguously identified at the mountain station, at each intersection and wherever a change of direction is possible; the colour coding (blue, easy, red, intermediate, black, difficult) follows the FIS piste classification and is binding in the sense that the marking must match the actual gradient and terrain. A red piste on which the middle section runs at 45 degrees has to be split and re-marked, if a casual skier falls there and is injured, the operator bears the primary fault because the colour code created the expectation of an intermediate descent. Orientation boards at the mountain station, a piste map aligned with the actual runs, weather and avalanche-level displays and the clearly marked emergency numbers of the piste service and mountain rescue are the minimum, and the OGH has treated their absence as a ground for liability in repeated decisions.

Closure of a piste, for avalanche danger, lack of snow, grooming in progress or at the end of the day, has to be unmistakable on the ground. The technique is the X-barrier with yellow banner closures, distance posts with hazard pictograms and, where the terrain allows it, a physical snow fence. A fluttering single tape at knee height is not enough; the OGH has consistently held that a closure only exists if a skier approaching at the usual pace can recognise it in good time and react. Where the closure is technically inadequate, a skier who rides into the closed area can rely on the presumption that there was nothing to see, and the operator becomes liable for any damage despite the formal barrier. Closed-off piste sections must additionally be signposted with the reason for the closure; a blank closure gives rise to uncertainty that the OGH treats as contributing to the operator’s share of the fault.

Conversely, a skier who deliberately crosses an effective closure takes on the hazard. The contributory-fault assessment under § 1304 ABGB in those cases regularly runs at 75 to 100 percent against the injured party, depending on how visible the closure was, whether a warning sign stated the reason and whether the skier had any plausible ground to believe that the closure was no longer in force. The evidentiary question in such cases is rarely the skier’s conduct but the state of the closure at the moment of the accident, and photographs taken by the piste service before the patrol removes the tape, together with the closure log, are the only reliable way of documenting that state. The same logic applies to avalanche closures: where the avalanche commission has ordered the piste closed and the closure is visible on the ground, a skier who rides into the avalanche zone rides at his own risk; where the closure is absent or defective, the operator answers for the consequences.

Piste machinery, snowmobiles and collisions with the operator vehicles

Snowcats, piste bashers, snowmobiles and the operator transport sleds are large, fast, quiet vehicles that move among skiers and snowboarders on the same terrain, a structural conflict that Austrian case law has assessed strictly in favour of the pedestrian road user. On an open piste during opening hours, grooming vehicles may only operate with rotating warning lights and an audible horn, at walking pace in the immediate vicinity of skiers and with a spotter or escort where the view is restricted. Collisions between skiers and snowcats on an open piste are by the OGH’s settled view a responsibility of the operator, the skier does not have to expect a working snowcat on the descent during opening hours, and the driver’s duty to observe the descent path extends to the full downhill sightline.

The winch-secured snowcat presents the most acute hazard of all and has produced the longest line of fatal accidents on Austrian pistes in the last twenty years. The steel cable runs diagonally across the slope, often at neck height, and is almost invisible against a white background. The accident pattern is tragically uniform: a skier descends into the winch area, rides into the cable and is either decapitated or sustains catastrophic neck and thorax injuries. The operator’s duty in these situations is to avoid winch operation on open pistes wherever possible, to operate only at night, to close the winch section with full-height warning flags and to deploy a spotter. Breach of these duties leads to full operator liability and, in every case of serious injury, to a criminal investigation under § 88 StGB (negligent bodily harm) and § 80 StGB (negligent homicide) against the driver and the responsible operations manager.

Snowmobiles deserve a separate comment. Austrian law restricts their use to service journeys and rescue operations; private snowmobile use on pistes is prohibited under the regional piste regulations and the KFG (Motor Vehicles Act). A snowmobile used by a piste employee outside its permitted purpose, for convenience, shortcut or as a demonstration, takes the operator outside its own regulations and regularly means that the liability insurer can restrict coverage under the commercial policy. For the injured skier, that has the counter-intuitive consequence that full compensation may have to be pursued against the individual employee as well as against the operator. A coordinated approach, insurance coverage, labour-law consequences for the employee and civil-law claim for the injured party, is indispensable in these files.

After the accident: evidence, insurer and procedure

A piste accident is the moment at which evidence begins to evaporate. The slope is groomed overnight, the snow melts, witnesses scatter across the world. The first 72 hours are the window in which the factual basis of any claim is decided. For the injured party, that means: photographs of the scene from multiple angles before the snowcat arrives, witness contact data, the lift-ticket number for digital reconstruction of the own movements, a written report to the piste service and a medical examination with a complete record of injuries. For the operator, the same duty runs in mirror image: accident report signed by the piste service, a photographic record of the piste before any preparation, the day’s inspection log, the avalanche-commission protocol and the weather data. The party that produces the better documentation will, in almost every case, occupy the stronger position three years later in the Landesgericht.

Out-of-court handling runs in the first instance through the operator’s commercial liability insurer. The major carriers for Austrian ski resorts are Allianz, Generali, Uniqa, Wiener Städtische, Zürich and the Bayerische Versicherungskammer; the specialist adjusters at these carriers are familiar with OGH case law, with the typical fault distribution in piste accidents and with the medical calibration of Austrian pain-and-suffering rates. A structured letter of claim with medical findings, a per-day compensation calculation (currently between EUR 120 and EUR 320 per day depending on degree of suffering) and a precise itemised list of treatment and consequential costs will lead to a settlement offer in a workable number of cases. Where the insurer refuses, the decision between civil litigation and adhesive prosecution in the criminal case has to be taken based on the fact pattern, with an eye to the cost risk, the evidentiary position and the likely duration.

Formal litigation against a ski resort operator runs before the competent Landesgericht (Regional Court) at the place of the accident, in Salzburg, Innsbruck, Feldkirch, Klagenfurt or Leoben, depending on the resort. Amounts in dispute up to EUR 15,000 go to the Bezirksgericht (District Court). Territorial jurisdiction is governed by § 92a JN (Austrian Court Jurisdiction Act). In parallel, criminal proceedings under § 88 StGB (negligent bodily harm), § 80 StGB (negligent homicide) or § 81 StGB (grossly negligent homicide) typically run against the responsible operations manager and the vehicle operator or piste-service employee. The injured party can join the criminal case as a private party (Privatbeteiligter) under § 67 StPO (Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure) and pursue the civil damages claim adhesively, a considerably more cost-effective route than pure civil litigation, and one with faster access to the prosecutor’s investigation file. Where the criminal dimension weighs heavily, see our pages on slope accidents and strafsachen.at; for the complementary question of lift and cableway infrastructure liability see cableway and lift operator liability.

In-depth topics

What we advise on in detail.

01

Duty of care on a prepared piste

The path-keeper liability under § 1319a ABGB (Austrian Civil Code), the case law of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) on atypical hazards and the practical threshold between unavoidable skiing risk and organisational failure of the operator.

02

Piste marking and signage

Colour coding of the descent (blue, red, black), piste boards, orientation maps, avalanche warnings and weather notices. What the piste regulation of the FIS and the Austrian piste-code require, and how a missing or wrongly placed sign is treated in civil proceedings.

03

Piste edges, snow fences and artificial obstacles

Securing steep edges, rocks, snow-cannon masts and artificial slalom features. Where § 1319 ABGB (liability of the owner of a work) enters the picture and where a bare snow net is already sufficient.

04

Closed runs and end-of-day operations

Barrier tapes, X-barrier, piste sweep, the moment the piste is closed for the day and the remaining duty of care for skiers still on the mountain. Who enters a closed piste bears contributory fault, but the operator still cannot leave it unpatrolled.

05

Snowcat and snowmobile collisions on the piste

Grooming vehicles, snowmobiles, transport sleds: operating lights, acoustic warning, winch-cable protection. Liability after a collision with a skier and the interaction with the criminal offences under §§ 80, 88 StGB (Austrian Criminal Code).

06

Off-piste and variant descents, where the duty ends

The line between prepared piste and open terrain, marked variants and freeride zones. What warning the operator owes to those who leave the groomed descent, and when the skier bears the risk alone.

07

Operator insurance and B2B defence

Commercial liability coverage of the ski resort operator, recourse by social insurers and statutory-health insurers, and the defence against mass claims after a single incident. Coordination with the insurer from day one.

Related topics

This may also be relevant to you.

Slope accidents

Liability in collisions, FIS rules, evidence preservation and compensation, from the initial report to out-of-court settlement.

Cableway and lift operator liability

Liability of cableway, chairlift and drag-lift operators under the SeilbG 2003 (Austrian Cableway Act) and the ABGB. Duty of care, boarding and disembarking, piste machinery, avalanche protection.

Ski touring & backcountry

Liability in ski touring, off-piste and freeriding. Duties of guides, parties involved in avalanche events.
Recent posts

Recent posts on this topic

31 May 2026

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

The new thesis I.L.4 (ZVR 2023, 469) requires mechanical padding for mobile snow-making devices in principle. Practical guide for injured skiers.

29 May 2026

Funpark, snowpark and the slope safety duty, where self-responsibility ends

OGH 4 Ob 181/20a, 3 Ob 237/24k and OLG Linz 6 R 105/24i: when the funpark operator is liable and when the park user carries the risk.

Piste accident or resort-operator claim, we put the case in order.

Whether you are an injured party seeking to enforce claims or an operator or insurer preparing a defence: early legal assessment sets the negotiating position. 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