SKIRECHT
DE EN BKS
Menü
Slope accidents

Snowmobile on the slope, equal fault sharing under OGH 2 Ob 231/23v

OGH 2 Ob 231/23v: slope rescuer with active warning equipment and skier with 43 m sight. Equal fault sharing as reference.

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
1 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Snowmobiles belong to ski-area operations. Slope rescue, control runs and operational tasks require them. For skiers, however, they are not an ordinary slope risk. When a collision happens, the question of fault share arises.

This post, the fifth in the series "Slope safety 2026", works through the OGH line 2 Ob 231/23v. The Senate in this case accepted an equal fault sharing. The slope rescuer and the skier each carried half the responsibility. What does this mean for injured skiers in comparable constellations?

Audience: injured skiers after a collision or fall caused by a snowmobile on the slope. The line shows: sight conditions and warning equipment decide the share; not the general question "slope vehicle yes or no".

Situation and visibility

How was the sight, how was the warning equipment?

Answer one or two questions on sight and warning equipment. You receive a first assessment in light of decision 2 Ob 231/23v.

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

01 Question 1

Could you see the snowmobile in good time?

Sight conditions and recognisability are central under OGH 2 Ob 231/23v. Mutual sight of more than 40 metres speaks for the skier's self-responsibility.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Equal fault sharing likely (OGH 2 Ob 231/23v).

In 2 Ob 231/23v the OGH accepted an equal fault sharing for a slope rescuer in deployment with activated signal light and horn. The slope operator must answer for the rescuer not braking further. The skier must answer for a serious attention lapse because he did not brake despite 43 metres of sight.

Evidence: document sight lines on the day of the accident, slope-rescue protocol, statements of the rescuer and skier. Even at equal share, an economically relevant claim of 50 per cent remains.

02

Claim viable, missing or inadequate warning equipment is a clear breach of duty.

Where the rescuer was operating without active warning equipment, a central safety measure is missing. The line of OGH 2 Ob 231/23v does not apply in full sharpness; the share shifts in the skier's favour.

Evidence: talk to witnesses who could have heard or seen signal lights, photo of the snowmobile standing (lights and horn on or off).

03

Narrow or hidden spots carry a particular safety duty; claim viable.

The OGH in 2 Ob 231/23v denied a general duty to a warning board at every hidden spot. At particularly narrow passages or a single poorly visible bend the situation is different. An unsecured slope-vehicle encounter in this constellation can establish a breach of duty.

The exact geometry of the narrow spot, sight lines, slope width and speeds of both parties matter. An expert opinion on fall geometry is standard here.

04

Claim rather difficult; open conditions speak for self-responsibility.

On an open slope with clear sight conditions, the contributory negligence of a skier who collides despite a recognisable snowmobile is high. The line 2 Ob 231/23v stresses the skier's self-securing duty. Your own accident insurance is the economically relevant port of call.

The OGH line 2 Ob 231/23v

In 2 Ob 231/23v the matter concerned a skier who met an uphill-driving snowmobile of the defendant ski-area operator on a 5 to 6 m wide ski path. The slope rescuer drove with signal light and horn as a rescuer in deployment. The skier moved off the slope edge while evading and was seriously injured.

The OGH contrasted two central duties. First: the slope operator must, when deploying slope vehicles during lift operation, take measures to warn slope users, especially at narrow or hidden passages. A general duty to a warning board at every hidden spot would, however, overstretch the safety duties.

Second: the slope rescuer who did not brake further despite seeing the oncoming skier must answer for a breach of duty of care. The skier in turn must answer for a serious attention lapse because, despite the snowmobile being visible from 43 metres, he did not brake and did not evade on the curve inside. Weighing the breaches, the assumption of equal fault sharing seems appropriate.

Practical line for clients after a snowmobile encounter

From the decision 2 Ob 231/23v three rules of thumb can be drawn. First: sight conditions are the central argument. Anyone who could see the snowmobile from 30 metres and did not react carries significant contributory negligence. Anyone who could not see it because of a crest or sight obstruction is significantly better positioned.

Second: warning equipment is central in evidentiary terms. Active signal light and horn relieve the operator in part. If missing or poorly audible, the share tips in the skier's favour. Evidence are statements of other slope users (were the warning signals audible?), police protocol and, in dispute, an expert opinion on acoustic perceptibility.

Third: even at equal share, an economically relevant claim remains. For serious injuries with pain compensation, healing costs, loss of earnings and disfigurement compensation under Sections 1323, 1325 ABGB, a 50 per cent share can mean substantial sums. In-depth treatment in the slope accidents topic area.

In short: For snowmobiles on the slope, sight conditions and warning equipment decide the fault share. Equal share is the reference under OGH 2 Ob 231/23v with active warning equipment and clear sight. With particular circumstances the share shifts.

Frequently asked

Snowmobile, slope rescue, fault share.

Does the line 2 Ob 231/23v also apply to snow groomers? +

The basic principles transfer; the concrete share may turn out differently. Snow groomers operate during lift operation only in exceptional cases. Anyone who meets a snow groomer during operating hours often has a stronger starting position.

Which insurance pays out with injuries involving contributory negligence? +

A private accident insurance typically pays out regardless of fault and cushions the full economic burden. The claim against the slope operator is then pursued proportionally according to the share, supplementary to the accident insurance payout.

What counts as warning equipment on a snowmobile? +

Standard are an activated signal light (rotating light) and an acoustic horn. In some ski areas front lights or additional warning tones are added. Evidentially, the state at the time of the accident counts, not the technical equipment level overall.

Is legal help worthwhile despite visible contributory negligence? +

Yes. The question is not "claim yes or no", but "at which share". Even a 30 to 50 per cent share leads to substantial sums for serious injuries. A legal assessment is in principle worthwhile, at least as a brief initial check.

What if the slope rescuer was on his way to rescue other injured people? +

The necessity of the deployment is a factor that does not remove the rescuer's duty to be careful. Even in deployment he must act in a manner adapted to his driving style and speed. The justification "rescue run" does not relieve him of the duty of care at hidden spots.

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