SKIRECHT
DE EN BKS
Menü
Cableway & lift operators

Chairlift standstill and flash ice, EKHG strict liability under OGH 2 Ob 198/23s

OGH 2 Ob 198/23s: prolonged chairlift standstill due to flash ice. Failure of functions excludes liability release under Section 9 EKHG.

Your personal attorney

Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

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
3 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Lift standstills are part of winter sports. A few minutes on the lift are uncomfortable but harmless; multi-hour standstills in icy wind are an entirely different matter. The OGH refined the line for cold injuries from technical lift standstills with 2 Ob 198/23s. What does this mean for affected passengers?

This post, the seventh in the series "Slope safety 2026", works through the EKHG line. In the concrete case, a chairlift was at a standstill for an extended time due to flash-ice formation on the drive wheels in the station; passengers suffered cold injuries. The OGH rejected the operator's liability release because the freezing was to be assessed as a failure of the installation's functions.

Audience: passengers with injuries from a lift standstill, especially with cold injuries, frostbite, follow-up illness. From the lawyer's perspective central: strict EKHG liability is significantly more favourable for the passenger than tortious fault liability because the operator must prove the liability release.

Frame the cause

What caused the standstill?

Answer a short entry question on the cause. You receive a first assessment against the OGH line 2 Ob 198/23s.

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

01 Question 1

What caused the standstill?

The liability release under Section 9 EKHG depends on whether an unavoidable event is present. Technical causes usually exclude the liability release.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

EKHG liability applies. Liability release under Section 9 EKHG barely possible.

The OGH line 2 Ob 198/23s is unequivocal: where the standstill rests on a technical cause (freezing of drive wheels, failure of a function), the operating undertaking cannot successfully invoke an unavoidable event under Section 9 EKHG. The constitution-and-function component excludes the liability release.

Damages headings: healing costs (cold injury, frostbite, follow-up illness), pain compensation, loss of earnings. Cold illnesses are often hard to classify, early medical documentation is central.

02

A weather event may under circumstances be an unavoidable event. Question of foreseeability.

A weather event is not automatically an unavoidable event under Section 9 EKHG. Decisive is whether it was foreseeable under the circumstances and whether the installation and personnel observed the required duty of care. An unannounced storm in a weather situation where such phenomena were to be expected is not necessarily unavoidable.

Expert opinions on the weather situation and the operator's reaction capability are typical in litigation. As an injured passenger you have significant evidence advantages under EKHG; the operator must prove the liability release.

03

Standstill due to rescue of a third party. Liability track shifts to the cause.

Where the standstill results from a third-party intervention (for instance another passenger's fall with lift stop), the operating undertaking may more easily achieve the liability release under Section 9 EKHG. However, damage remains compensable where the reaction time or rescue organisation of the operator was inadequate.

A rescue typically takes 30 to 60 minutes. A standstill over several hours requires explanation also in the rescue case and may establish breaches of duty.

The OGH line 2 Ob 198/23s

In 2 Ob 198/23s the matter concerned a prolonged standstill of a chairlift due to flash-ice formation on the drive wheels in the station. Passengers suffered health damage, especially through cold. The OGH treated the case not as a classical slope-safety question but as technical operating liability under EKHG.

EKHG applies to cable cars. The compensation duty falls on the operating undertaking (Section 5 EKHG). An accident in connection with the operation of a railway or motor vehicle realising a characteristic hazard is to be compensated under Section 1 EKHG. With a lift standstill and cold injury this characteristic hazard is regularly to be affirmed.

The central point was: the operator could not successfully invoke an unavoidable event under Section 9 EKHG because the freezing of the drive wheels was to be assessed as a failure of the installation's functions. EKHG liability was thus given and the damage was in principle to be compensated.

Practical line for clients after a standstill with cold injury

From the OGH line three rules of thumb can be drawn. First: with a technical cause (icing, motor failure, hydraulics) EKHG liability is usually to be affirmed. The operating undertaking bears the burden of proof for a release under Section 9 EKHG. Second: weather events do not automatically relieve. Examining foreseeability, required care and reaction capability often yields anchors for liability despite a weather event. Third: the EKHG reversal of the burden of proof is the decisive procedural lever.

Damages headings are varied: healing costs of the cold illness, pain compensation, loss of earnings, in serious cases follow-up illnesses (chronic respiratory problems, trauma). Early and complete medical documentation is central. With children and elderly persons damages ranges are larger.

In-depth treatment on installation liability in the cable car and lift operators topic area. With modern unattended installations a second track arises: the software manufacturer (see post on unattended cable cars).

In short: Lift standstill with cold injury is an EKHG matter. The liability release under Section 9 EKHG usually fails when the cause lies in a technical component of the installation. Weather events do not relieve automatically. Early medical documentation of the cold illness is central in evidentiary terms.

Frequently asked

Lift standstill, cold injury, EKHG.

How long must a standstill last for a claim to arise? +

There is no rigid threshold. Decisive is the emergence of damage. With icy wind and several hours of standstill, cold injuries are plausible; with a few minutes in a protected location typically not. Medical documentation decides.

What is the difference between EKHG and fault liability? +

EKHG liability is strict liability. The injured party need only prove damage and causation; the operating undertaking bears the burden of proof for the liability release. With fault liability the injured party would have to prove personnel fault, which is often very difficult with technical installations.

Does my own insurance pay out for lift cold injuries? +

A private accident or travel insurance may apply if the cold injury is an accident within the meaning of its conditions. Coverage is independent of fault. The claim against the operator is pursued in parallel; double recovery is excluded.

What if I went to hospital after rescue? +

Secure admission report, surgical report, all medical findings. With longer hospital stays nursing costs, sick leave evidence and possibly loss of earnings are claim-founding headings. Early legal assessment is advisable.

Does age play a role with cold injuries? +

Yes, damage is often larger and longer-lasting with children and elderly persons. Pre-existing conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory) can also intensify damage. When quantifying the claim individual damage susceptibility is to be taken into account.

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 strafrecht@brandauer-rechtsanwaelte.at
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg