Which of the skier, the operator or by mountain professionals is responsible in case of accident on a track ? Here are the obligations which are subject to each of them and the court decisions handed down in order to better understand the responsibilities.

Each must comply with a code of good conduct on the slopes and is therefore accounting violations that he causes to others. When the head is the skier, three situations are possible.

The skier is at fault

the person responsible for The damage. Any person is held responsible for the damage that it causes by his fault, negligence or imprudence (articles 1240 and 1241 of the civil Code). The surfer who tumbles down a track without changing its speed to avoid other skiers will be condemned to pay damages and interest to the people it has hit. To do this, the victim must take legal action in a civil action. It can also refer to the courts and criminal matters. The judges analyze on a case-by-case basis, that is to say, according to the situation and the behavior of skiers to determine who is responsible, each to control its speed and proportion to his capacities, to the conditions of the terrain and the density of traffic on the tracks. Generally, they believe that the skier in front has a dominant position that allows him the choice of a route. He must anticipate an overflow or a path that preserves the safety of the skier in the downstream, which is, in principle, priority (Court of cassation, 2nd civil chamber, 8 August 2010, no. 09-14557). Is therefore responsible for the skier upstream down the red track (for experienced) at a brisk pace and hits a skier down a green trail, which is reserved for children and beginners (court of appeal of Grenoble, 3 November 2015, no 14/00919).

The grounds of shared fault. The judges sometimes feel that the responsibilities should be shared between the skier that descends the track and one located downstream. A woman who had been through a track from the left to the right, and had stopped to pick up the stick that a child had lost was hit by a teenager of 13 years who dévalait the slope. The judges considered that she had committed an indiscretion, and was liable for the harm caused to the young. Which has, moreover, been convicted for the damages suffered by the woman (court of appeal of Poitiers, December 3, 2014, no 14/00235).

Your support is essential. Subscribe for $ 1 support Us

The cause of the “keeper of the skis.” The judges punish sometimes on the basis of article 1242 of the civil Code. It states that one is liable for the damage caused by the “things that one has under his guard”, even in the absence of fault. This notion of a guardian of the thing is of great interest to the extent that it is not always easy to prove a fault, but it is easier to demonstrate the reality of the shock, enough for a penalty. In the judgment of 3 December 2014 the court of appeal of Poitiers, the young person has been held responsible as the guardian of his skis.

When the responsible person is the operator

If the injury is related to a lack of maintenance of tracks or use of lifts, the victim may seek damages to the operator, which may be the municipality or a company dealer.

The maintenance and security of trails. , When the skier buys a package, he signed a contract with the operator of the tracks. Which, in turn, is subject to an obligation of security of his client

It is an obligation of means : if the operator has not put into place the tools necessary, he is liable on the basis of article 1231-1 of the civil Code. If there is a sheet of ice on a track frequented by skiers with little experience, the municipality must take measures to protect and/or ban of passage, or signaling in order to avoid an accident foreseeable (Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, July 3, 2013, no. 12-14216). It can also be condemned if it installs a simple rope to separate a blue piste (accessible to all) of a building located below, while a net of protection would have been of a nature to prevent skiers collide with the building (court of appeal of Chambery, 27 June 2013, no. 12/01628). The absence of netting at a location hazardous because of the presence of a torrent below, and outputs to track predictable is an obvious breach to this security obligation (Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 17 February 2011, no. 09-71880). However, in order to engage the liability of the operator, the victim must prove that the track was dangerous, abnormal, or excessive, or that the devices for beaconing, signalling, information and protection had not been implemented (court of appeal of Toulouse, 27 April 2015, no 14/01765). If, on the contrary, the signage is sufficient and the accident occurs due to the irresponsible attitude of the skier (whether it was off-piste, for example), the accident is not compensable (court of appeal of Chambéry, 5 November 2015, no 14/02889).

The use of ski lifts. The operator has an obligation of security. But its extent varies according to time of use : it is an obligation of result, during the ride and an obligation of means during the operations of embarking and disembarking, due to the active role played by then the users (the Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 10 march 1998, no 96-12141). His responsibility, therefore, is always engaged if the accident occurs during the transportation, without the user having to prove his fault. On the opposite, it will have to prove a breach of of the operator in case of an accident during embarkation or disembarkation. The latter is thus automatically liable if a skier falls off of chairlift twelve meters before the arrival, because the landing operation begins only at the point where the skier must leave his seat (the Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 11 June 2002, no. 00-10415). In contrast, at the time of the landing, the operator will be liable if it does not slow down or does not stop the device. Indeed, in this case, he will not have used all means to prevent the fall of passengers (court of appeal of Grenoble, march 8, 2004, no. 02/02751).

The case of the professionals of the mountain

The instructors, ski schools and organisers of stays have a contract with their client, and must ensure its safety.

Read our complete file

Your Budget

Fuels : why pump prices have not decreased a lot, Fruits, vegetables, products of first necessity… runaway Inflation in the hypermarkets child Care, gas, drones… What changes the 1 may 2020 for your budget

The monitor and the ski school. When the accident took place in the context of a course, the victim may engage the responsibility of the instructor and the school that employs him. They have an obligation of means regarding the safety of the students. The judge determines if faults or omissions have been committed and eventually takes into account the behavior of the victim. A monitor that had organized an off-piste has been declared responsible for the fall of a skier. Even if the level of the group was high, he would have had to attract the attention on the snow icy, and the presence of a rock bar not reported that it knew (Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 9 February 1994, no. 91-17202). Similarly, an association has been incriminated for the occurrence of a child who had disobeyed the monitors. They were not at fault, the association does not provide the means to a better monitoring, because they were only three for a long journey (court of appeal of Montpellier, france, 10 September 2013, no. 12/03542).

The organisers of stays. They can be put in question if the accident occurs during the course of skiing included in the price (article L211-16 of the tourism Code). Thus, the client who breaks a leg is entitled to seek redress (Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 17 November 2011, no. 10-23905). A holiday club has been ordered to compensate the family of a man who died during a course off-piste for the advanced skiers (Court of cassation, 1st civil chamber, 16 October 2013, no. 12-17909).