SKIRECHT
DE EN BKS
Menü
Slope accidents

Collision on the slope, who is liable, FIS rules, shared fault and burden of proof

Collision between two skiers: how FIS rules and § 1304 ABGB determine the liability quota, which evidence counts and how contributory negligence is assessed.

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
5 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Two skiers collide on the slope. Who is liable, who pays, who bears which share? These questions arise thousands of times every season in Austrian ski resorts. The answer is not found in a single provision but in the interplay of the FIS rules of conduct, Austrian tort law and the burden-of-proof rules of the ABGB.

The central legal basis for compensating the loss is § 1295 ABGB (fault liability for the damage caused). Where both skiers made mistakes, § 1304 ABGB comes into play: fault is apportioned and the loss is divided proportionally. In the settled case law of the OGH the FIS rules of the International Ski Federation are the objectified standard of care between skiers, even though they are not state law.

This post is addressed to injured skiers who wish to assess their claims after a collision and to skiers against whom claims are raised. From the client's perspective the central question is which FIS rule was breached, who bears the burden of proof and which evidence must be secured in the first hours.

Type of collision and evidentiary position

Which FIS rule decides, which evidence secures the claim?

Answer two questions about the type of collision and the evidence available. You receive a first assessment under FIS Rule 3 and § 1304 ABGB.

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

01 Question 1

How did the collision happen?

FIS Rule 3 places the responsibility for track choice on the skier coming from behind or above. Anyone who runs into a skier ahead has in most cases breached Rule 3.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Strong starting position; prima facie case and secured evidence support the claim.

A skier who was hit from behind and has witnesses or camera data can well establish the prima facie case under FIS Rule 3. This inference shifts the burden of proof onto the skier from behind. Fault is apportioned under § 1304 ABGB where both parties made mistakes. Any own rule breach increases the contributory negligence risk.

Next steps: record witness statements in writing, secure camera and GPS data, request the slope-rescue protocol, commission an initial legal assessment.

02

More difficult evidentiary position; settlement is often advisable.

Without witnesses and without camera or GPS data the evidentiary position is more difficult for both sides. The prima facie case under FIS Rule 3 remains possible where the collision from behind is undisputed. The injury pattern and the slope-rescue protocol can serve as circumstantial evidence.

In practice such cases often end in a settlement because the litigation risk is considerable for both sides. An early legal assessment helps decide whether settlement or litigation is the better option.

FIS rules of conduct as the objectified standard of care

The ten FIS rules of conduct are, in the settled case law of the OGH, the recognised standard of care in the relationship between skiers. They were developed by the International Ski Federation and have no direct statutory force, but function as a concretisation of the due care required under § 1295 ABGB. Anyone who breaches a FIS rule and thereby injures another skier will in most cases have acted negligently.

The rules that are central in collision cases are: Rule 1 (consideration, every skier must behave in a way that does not endanger or harm others), Rule 2 (control, adapt speed and manner of skiing to personal ability, terrain, snow, weather and traffic density), Rule 3 (choice of track, the skier coming from behind or above must choose a line that does not endanger the skier ahead; the skier ahead has priority), Rule 4 (overtaking with sufficient distance) and Rule 5 (entering, starting again and moving uphill, look uphill first and yield to all).

For slope accidents between skiers, Rule 3 is the most practically relevant: the skier coming from behind or above bears the responsibility for the choice of track. Anyone who runs into a skier ahead has regularly breached Rule 3. Exceptions exist where the skier ahead suddenly blocks the way or has themselves breached Rule 5 (entering the slope).

Civil liability, Sections 1295 and 1304 ABGB

The foundation of every claim between skiers is § 1295 ABGB: anyone who causes damage to another through their own fault is obliged to compensate for it. Fault requires a breach of the duty of care, and this duty is concretised by the FIS rules. The claim is directed first against the injuring skier personally and can be settled through their personal liability insurance.

Where both skiers made mistakes, for instance because the skier behind was travelling too fast and the skier ahead entered the slope without looking uphill (breach of Rule 5), § 1304 ABGB applies: the contributory negligence of the injured party is taken into account in apportioning the loss. The court divides the loss according to shares of causation. In practice the range extends from full liability on one side to quotas such as 50:50 or 75:25. These quotas are individual case outcomes and not a guarantee of any particular apportionment.

Important for the injured skier: tort law contains no automatic rule equating a fall with fault. An injured party must establish and prove the other skier's fault (§ 1296 ABGB: in case of doubt each party bears their own loss). The prima facie case (Anscheinsbeweis) assists significantly (see below).

Four criteria, three constellations

Who bears which risk in a skier collision?

The table compares the three most common constellations, sole fault of the skier behind, sole fault of the skier ahead and shared fault, by standard of care, burden of proof, typical liability tendency and contributory negligence risk.

Liability comparison in skier collisions under FIS rules, § 1295 ABGB and § 1304 ABGB
Criterion Skier coming from behind/above Skier ahead Shared fault
FIS Rule 3 Standard of care Track choice must not endanger the one ahead; prima facie case applies to rear-end collisions Right of way; but Rule 2 (adapted speed) still applies Depending on breach: Rules 2, 4 or 5 may apply simultaneously
§ 1296 ABGB Burden of proof & prima facie case Prima facie case regularly applies; fault is presumed Injured party must prove the other's fault; prima facie case helps Both parties bear the burden of proof for the other's share
Practice Typical liability tendency Predominant to full liability, unless the skier ahead contributed Low liability risk if conduct was FIS-compliant Quota 50:50 to 75:25 depending on severity of rule breach
§ 1304 ABGB Contributory negligence risk Low, if own rule breach cannot be proved Medium, if own speed or track was a contributing cause High; court apportions according to share of causation

Figures as practical guidance. Quota outcomes depend on the concrete facts, the evidentiary position and the court's discretion.

Burden of proof and the prima facie case in rear-end collisions

Under the general rule of § 1296 ABGB the injured party bears the burden of proof for the other party's fault. This sounds demanding but is significantly eased by the prima facie case (Anscheinsbeweis). A prima facie case is established where a typical course of events is shown which, according to common experience, points to a particular fault.

In skier collision cases the prima facie case regularly operates in favour of the injured party where the collision occurred from behind or above: anyone who runs into a skier ahead has, according to common experience, breached Rule 3 FIS. The skier from behind may rebut this inference, for example by showing that the skier ahead stopped suddenly in an unclear spot, crossed the slope unexpectedly or entered without looking uphill. If the prima facie case is not rebutted, the rule breach is deemed proved.

Particularly valuable evidence for establishing the prima facie case: independent witnesses and their contact details, an accident sketch, helmet or ski-camera recordings, GPS or tracker data (many modern ski goggles and watches record speed and position), the slope-rescue protocol and a police report where one was drawn up. The pattern of injury itself can allow conclusions about the direction and force of impact.

What to do after the collision, evidence and the limitation period

The first hours after the collision are decisive for the evidentiary position. An injured party who wishes to assess their claims should immediately approach witnesses and secure their contact details, prepare or photograph an accident sketch, save helmet and ski-camera recordings (do not delete), request the slope-rescue protocol and any police record, and retain their own equipment. Medical reports from the day of the accident and all follow-up reports form part of the damages schedule.

No admission of fault should be made to the other skier or their insurer before an initial legal assessment. Insurers use every preliminary statement and later invoke it against their own opposite party. One's own personal liability insurer must be notified where one is potentially the injuring party.

The limitation period for claims in damages is three years from knowledge of the damage and the tortfeasor (§ 1489 ABGB). This period runs even if the consequences of injury are not yet fully foreseeable. Where healing is protracted, a declaratory action is advisable to suspend the limitation period for future losses not yet quantifiable. An early legal assessment can clarify whether and when this step is appropriate.

After a collision on the slope, what counts in the first hours:

  • Approach witnesses and note their contact details before the group disperses.
  • Draw or photograph an accident sketch showing the positions and directions of travel.
  • Save helmet and ski-camera recordings and GPS/tracker data, do not delete them.
  • Request the slope-rescue protocol and any police record.
  • Make no admissions of fault to the other skier or insurers.
  • Keep the three-year limitation period (§ 1489 ABGB) in mind; consider a declaratory action for long-term consequences.
Frequently asked

Skier collision, FIS rules and claims in practice.

Does FIS Rule 3 still apply if I ran into someone who stopped suddenly? +

As a general rule yes, Rule 3 places the responsibility for track choice on the skier behind. However, a skier who stops abruptly in an unclear spot may themselves have breached Rule 1 (consideration) or Rule 2 (adapted skiing). Whether this rebuts the prima facie case depends on the concrete facts and is a question of evidence assessment.

What happens if neither skier has witnesses? +

Then the case turns on circumstantial evidence: GPS data, injury pattern, tracks in the snow, the slope-rescue protocol and the consistency of the parties' accounts. Without witnesses the evidentiary position is more difficult for both sides. In practice such cases often end in a settlement because the litigation risk is considerable for both. An early legal assessment helps with the evaluation.

Can criminal law apply alongside civil law? +

Yes. A collision causing bodily injury can simultaneously trigger § 88 StGB (negligent bodily injury). Civil and criminal proceedings run independently. A criminal complaint does not preclude the civil claim and vice versa. In practice a criminal investigation can facilitate evidence-gathering in the civil case because investigation results may be used there.

How is contributory negligence calculated concretely? +

The court estimates the shares of causation under § 1304 ABGB and apportions the loss accordingly. There is no fixed formula; decisive factors are the nature and severity of each party's FIS rule breach, causation and the evidentiary position. Typical outcomes in practice range from full liability on one side to quotas such as 50:50 or 75:25, without any guarantee of a particular result in an individual case.

What if the other skier has no personal liability insurance? +

Personal liability insurance for skiers is not required by law in Austria, unlike in France or Italy for example. Without insurance the claim is directed personally against the tortfeasor. Whether and how a judgment can then be enforced depends on the other skier's financial means. One's own accident insurance is therefore always advisable as primary cover.

How much time do I have to assert my claim? +

The limitation period is three years from knowledge of the damage and the tortfeasor (§ 1489 ABGB). Where the injury consequences are initially unclear, the period begins only when the injured party has sufficient knowledge of the damage and the liable person. Waiting too long puts the claim at risk. Where healing is protracted a declaratory action to suspend the limitation period should be considered.

Related posts

Further posts on slope accidents.

Slope edge and ski accident, when the slope operator is liable

Safety duty, the 2-metre strip and the reversal of burden of proof under § 1298 ABGB for falls at the slope edge.

Snowmobile on the slope, shared fault and liability quotas

Who is liable for how much when a snowmobile and a skier collide on the slope?

Topics
FIS rulescollisionshared faultburden of proofslope accident§ 1304 ABGB

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