extreme than in the flat country. It was difficult if not impossible to keep a large aerea around the house free of snow and ice. By scattering gravel in front of the entrance, an area that was also illuminated, the restaurant operator had enabled safe access to the restaurant. It had not been foreseeable that a guest would appoach a remote window before entering. The resturant operator had therefore not been in breech of his pre-contractual duty of care. The Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn or amend this judgement. The size of the area to be secured would be a matter of the particular circumstances of each case. The appellate court could not be blamed for any gross misjudgement. 2.1.2. Snow-covered stairs In a somewhat similar case, the plaintiff had fallen on the staircase to the entrance of a ski resort restaurant at an altitude of 1700 meters. According to the findings, the staircase was cleared by shovelling the snow from top to bottom in such a way that a flat ramp with a gradient of 10 degrees was formed across all three steps. The stairs were not equipped with appropriate safety or support devices. The Supreme Court ruled that even if it was not proportionate to demand that restaurant entrances and exits in high-altitude ski resorts be completely free of snow and ice at all times, day and night, safety or support devices could at least have been installed. It was not evident why the ramp formed by the accumulation of snow could not have been secured in this way. The Supreme Court therfore upheld the judgment holding the restaurant operator liable.7 2.1.3. A shortcut on the mountain Another skiing area related case concerned a group of tobogganers who were out night tobogganing. Above the toboggan run, they called in at a restaurant run by the defendant, from which a path prepared by the defendant leads to the toboggan run. When it was already dark and somewhat foggy, the claimant was sledging along this access path, but left it after about two-thirds of the way and went down the valley-side embankment of the access path. He subsequently collided with the wall of a wooden barn and injured himself. The access path was illuminated up to the junction with the toboggan run, and the wooden barn was visible thanks to the illumination. 7 OGH judgement of 06.11.2008, 6 Ob 201/08i. 191 LIABILITY ISSUES IN THE GASTRONOMY SECTOR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==