A friend teaches you to ski for free and an accident follows. Learn how to distinguish a favour, assumed guidance and liability under the ABGB.
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.
A friend teaches you to ski for free and you fall after an exercise. The fact that the help was unpaid does not decide liability by itself. The relevant issues are the actual sequence, the role assumed, a negligent error and the loss caused by it.
Section 1295 ABGB covers loss caused by fault both where a contractual duty is breached and where there is no contractual relationship. Section 1299 ABGB may matter when someone voluntarily takes on a demanding form of instruction. For an individual statement, section 1300 ABGB also requires a distinction between an expert opinion given for reward and other advice.
This article concerns private, unpaid help from a friend while skiing. A booked ski school course, commercial instruction, ski area liability and criminal questions require separate assessment.
Answer three short questions about the role, accident sequence and documents. The result shows the most useful next points to examine.
Would you like to discuss your situation directly? Open the enquiry form.
The relevant facts include the agreement, the friend’s presentation, experience and actual guidance on the slope.
First organise the role the friend actually took on and the statement or action said to have led to the accident. Experience, agreements, line, speed and the opportunity to react can then be assessed together.
The messages and witness accounts should record the sequence as close to the event as possible. They help distinguish a simple favour from a more demanding form of instruction.
If few documents exist, write down the sequence with date, place, people involved and words you remember verbatim. Keep your own recollection separate from other people’s accounts and later assumptions.
Incomplete documentation does not decide liability in advance. It does make it harder to examine whether an instruction, a risky route or the learner’s own conduct caused the loss.
A favour between friends is usually provided without a contract and without payment. That does not create a blanket release from every form of responsibility. Section 1295 ABGB focuses on a loss caused by fault and expressly covers both a breached contractual duty and loss caused without a contract.
The labels are therefore insufficient. “It was only a favour” does not end the examination, just as “he gave a lesson” does not prove liability. The facts include what was agreed, what knowledge the friend had, what action was taken and whether that action caused the fall or another injury.
The private situation differs from a booked course. A ski school and instructor offer an organised contractual service. Private help depends more strongly on the circumstances of the actual exchange. The article on adult ski course liability explains the contractual comparison.
Section 1299 ABGB describes two groups of cases. A person who publicly presents themselves as holding an office, practising an art, trade or craft must stand behind the necessary knowledge and diligence. The same can apply where a person voluntarily takes on a task that requires specialist knowledge or unusual diligence.
For private skiing, the actual assumption of responsibility matters. A short comment such as “bend your knees” or “slow down there” does not automatically turn a friend into a professional instructor. A person who plans a longer exercise, chooses a difficult descent, sets the pace or line, or expressly presents special expertise may have taken on a more demanding task.
Section 1299 ABGB also refers to the inexperienced person’s knowledge. If the learner knew or could have recognised the friend’s lack of experience with ordinary attention, that fact must also be examined. The provision supplies neither automatic liability nor a free pass. It directs attention to the task assumed, the knowledge on both sides and the concrete error.
The label alone does not decide the result. The focus is on the service actually agreed and provided.
| Occasional tips | Assumed guidance | Booked ski course |
|---|---|---|
| Which specific advice was given? | Which task and risk were assumed? | Which duties follow from the course and its organisation? |
| Short help without a fixed sequence | Exercises, route, pace or line are guided | The school and instructor provide an organised service |
| Section 1295 ABGB and the specific cause of loss | Sections 1295 ABGB and, where applicable, 1299 ABGB | Contractual duties and the school’s responsibility |
The legal classification depends on the complete sequence and the loss that occurred.
A statement such as “you are safe with me” first describes the communication between the people involved. It does not replace an examination of the actual risk. The relevant question is whether the statement was a specific safety assurance, simple encouragement or advice that was unjustifiable in the circumstances.
Section 1300 ABGB makes an expert responsible where, against reward in their field, they accidentally give harmful advice. Outside that case, the statutory text makes an adviser responsible for loss knowingly caused by giving the advice. This special rule should not be applied mechanically to every free comment.
Even where section 1300 ABGB does not fit, section 1295 ABGB remains relevant as the general basis for the examination. The focus is then on whether the action or advice was negligent and caused the loss. Keep messages that describe the friend’s experience, the safety of the route or the effect of an exercise.
The assessment does not stop with what the friend said. The learner’s ability, awareness of the risk, speed, response to an instruction and opportunity to stop an exercise or descent are also relevant. These facts help distinguish the cause and sequence of the accident.
A fall with no identifiable faulty instruction differs from an accident after a concrete and risky direction. At the same time, the label “beginner” does not remove every personal decision from consideration. If a danger was recognised or could have been recognised, that fact belongs in the overall assessment.
A collision on the slope raises additional issues. Direction of travel, distance and visibility may matter. The general rules for ski, snowboard and toboggan accidents are set out in the overview of compensation after slope accidents.
Start by recording the sequence in time. Note when the help began, which exercises or descents were discussed, who selected the route and which words were spoken immediately before the accident. Mark verbatim recollections as such. Later legal assessments should be kept separate.
Messages, chats and voice messages may show whether the friend claimed particular experience or made a safety assurance. Record witnesses with contact details and their own observations. Photographs of the route, terrain, visibility and equipment can support a reconstruction.
Medical findings, invoices, sickness certificates and evidence of specific absences are relevant to the loss. The burden of proof also matters for a solo fall without witnesses. The article on the burden of proof after a solo fall addresses that issue. For a private companion on a ski tour, see the separate article on private ski tour companions.
Important: Free ski instruction between friends creates neither automatic liability nor automatic exclusion of liability. The relevant issues are the task assumed, the specific negligent act, the cause of the accident and the conduct of both people involved.
No. The absence of payment does not decide liability on its own. The examination covers the task assumed, a negligent error, causation and the loss under section 1295 ABGB.
That depends on the facts. Occasional tips differ from a voluntarily assumed and demanding form of guidance involving exercises, route selection or binding directions. The knowledge of both people belongs in the examination.
Section 1300 ABGB distinguishes an expert opinion given for reward from advice given in other circumstances. It should not be applied mechanically to every free comment. Section 1295 ABGB remains the general basis to examine.
The sequence is decisive. Relevant facts include a specific instruction, the visible risk, the learner’s response and the medically documented consequences. A solo fall does not categorically exclude an examination of another person’s error.
Keep messages, witness contacts, photographs, slope and route information, equipment details, medical findings and invoices. Write down the sequence promptly and separate your own observations from later assumptions.
Foundations for accidents, causes and responsibility on the slope.
The topic area for organised and booked courses.
Legal questions about private companions and ski tours.
The contractual responsibility of a ski school.
A different liability setting in which technical responsibility is assessed separately.
Duties and limits of private companionship.
What matters when there are no witnesses.
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.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 660 2407152