SKIRECHT
Cableway & lift operators

Unattended cable-car installations and AI liability, shift of responsibility rather than liability-free zone

ZVR 2025/203 on autonomous cable-car operation with AI: no liability-free zone, EKHG remains central. Who is liable, when.

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.

2 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Unattended cable-car installations are no longer a vision for the future. Three cabin cars without station personnel have been operational in Austria since 2020; five detachable chairlifts with AI-supported mountain-station monitoring since 2023. This raises new liability questions. Do AI systems create a liability-free zone, or does responsibility merely shift?

This post, the sixth in the series "Slope safety 2026", works through the ZVR 2025/203 analysis by Cap/Weber on the 42nd Seilbahnsymposium. The answer in advance: there is no liability-free zone. The requirements shift to technical reliability, monitoring, maintenance and organisation. Strict liability under EKHG remains the supporting regime.

Audience: passengers injured at an unattended installation and their families. From the lawyer's perspective, the central point is: AI supplements the personnel; it does not replace the duties of the operating undertaking. Anyone who falls at the exit when the system does not react has a very solid anchor for EKHG liability.

Frame installation and incident

Which installation, which incident?

Answer one or two questions on the installation and the incident. You receive a first assessment in light of the ZVR 2025/203 analysis.

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

01 Question 1

What kind of cable-car installation is involved?

Unattended cabin-car operation has been established since 2020, on detachable chairlifts since 2023 with AI-based systems.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Strong anchor for EKHG liability. The AI system failed.

Under the ZVR 2025/203 analysis, the liability release under Section 9(1) EKHG does not apply where the system fails to recognise a hazard which a station attendant would have recognised under the required duty of care. Difficulties at the exit are precisely the application.

Evidence: request recordings of the AI system (the installation typically records data), slope-rescue protocol, witnesses among other passengers. For self-learning systems the manufacturer's liability under the Product Liability Act (PHG, from 9.12.2026 extended to software) is also to be examined.

02

EKHG liability applies. Autonomous operation does not differ in this respect from conventional.

The Railway and Motor Vehicle Liability Act (EKHG) applies to cable cars (Section 5 EKHG, operating-undertaking liability). An accident during boarding or alighting from a cable car is a characteristic hazard of the technical operation. In all these aspects the autonomous operation does not differ from the conventional; damage is to be compensated under EKHG.

The question is whether the operating undertaking can invoke Section 9 EKHG (unavoidable event). With a technically correct installation and proper maintenance this is hard; with installations on outdated software or visibly deficient monitoring it is barely possible.

03

Claim viable. Reference to the lift-standstill line under OGH 2 Ob 198/23s.

With prolonged standstills causing personal injury (cold, stress, hours in the cabin) the EKHG line applies. If the standstill is due to a failure of the installation's functions and not to an unavoidable event, the liability release under Section 9 EKHG is excluded.

For unattended installations the reaction time of the operations personnel is especially to be examined. Anyone who does not react in time from the control room intensifies liability. In-depth treatment in the post on lift standstill and ice.

04

Classical EKHG liability of the operating undertaking. Not an AI-specific topic.

For a classical staffed lift the ordinary regime of EKHG strict liability applies. Personnel behaviour is the central factor (speed, attention, emergency reaction). In-depth treatment in the cable car and lift operators topic area.

Autonomous operation of chairlifts with AI

In the unattended mountain station a camera system with AI-based software monitors the exit area. The system captures arriving chairs and passengers and tracks them until they leave the exit area. On an incident the system decides whether to reduce speed or shut down the lift. Adjustments to the AI are not made during operation but through software updates during maintenance.

The central advantage is shorter reaction times, no attention deficits. The central disadvantage is the lack of anticipation capability. Experienced personnel recognise early that a passenger may have difficulties and preventively reduce speed. The system, by contrast, only reacts to an actually occurring incident such as shutdown after a fall.

From this asymmetry the main line for liability follows. Where the system fails to recognise a hazard which a station attendant would have recognised under the required duty of care, a liability release under Section 9(1) EKHG does not apply. This is precisely the case for exit falls with missing anticipation.

EKHG remains the central lever

EKHG applies to cable cars because they fall under the railway concept of Section 2 EKHG. The compensation duty falls on the operating undertaking (Section 5 EKHG). Fault liability remains relevant for operational tasks involving human action (monitoring, emergency intervention), but the more autonomous the operation, the more EKHG gains importance as basis.

A liability release under Section 9(1) EKHG requires an unavoidable event which is neither based on a defect in the constitution nor on a failure of functions. With unattended operation, primarily the "constitution" and the "functions" of the installation will be relevant. Software errors or insufficient protection against hacking attacks exclude a liability release. The duties of the cable car and lift operators reach into software maintenance.

A second lever is manufacturer liability under PHG. From 9 December 2026, the new Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 expressly covers software, including software updates. Even for self-learning systems, manufacturer liability comes into play. This opens up for injured passengers a second debtor, the manufacturer of the AI system alongside the operating undertaking of the cable car.

In short: Unattended cable cars create no liability-free zone. Responsibility shifts to technical reliability, monitoring and maintenance. Anyone falling at the exit when the AI system does not react in time has a strong EKHG anchor. A retrofit duty for existing installations does not exist under current law.

Frequently asked

Unattended installations, AI and liability.

Is there a duty for ski areas to retrofit existing installations with AI? +

No, under current law not. As long as autonomous operation is not required by authorisation rules and is not state of the art, a retrofit duty cannot be assumed. The costs of retrofitting would also not be reasonable for many operators.

Who is liable for a software error that led to my injury? +

Two tracks in parallel: first, the operating undertaking under EKHG (failure of functions excludes the liability release). Second, the manufacturer of the AI system under PHG, which from 9.12.2026 expressly covers software. For self-learning systems a tortious product-monitoring duty may also apply.

How do I secure evidence after an incident at an unattended installation? +

Immediately call slope rescue or the operations personnel via the station communication equipment. Talk to other passengers as witnesses. The installation typically records camera data; a lawyer can specifically request this data.

What does the EU product liability law mean from 9.12.2026? +

The Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 from the implementation date expressly covers software. An economic operator is not released from liability where the defect is due to a connected service, software including software updates or absence of updates, provided these are under his control.

Does it matter whether the valley station is also unattended? +

Unattended valley stations are not state of the art for detachable chairlifts at present because the boarding complexity is too high. For cabin cars the valley and mountain station can be autonomous together. The reaction time to the unattended location is always a central evaluation point.

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.

Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg