Contractual Liability (§§ 280(1), 241(2) BGB) & Tortious Liability (§ 823(1) BGB): 

§ 280(1) BGB – Contractual damages for breach of duty
§ 241(2) BGB – Contractual duties of protection and care
§ 823(1) BGB – Tort liability for breach of Verkehrssicherungspflichten

Operator’s Verkehrssicherungspflicht (Traffic safety obligation)is limited:
The operator of a sports or recreational facility must protect users only from dangers that exceed the usual risk, are unforeseeable, or are not readily recognizable. 

Obvious risks need not be eliminated:
A bright-red slackline stretched visibly across an open exercise area does not constitute a hidden or extraordinary hazard.The core legal question was whether the studio operator breached its duty of care. The court reiterated that this duty requires taking precautions that a "prudent and sensible person" would consider necessary and sufficient to prevent harm. This does not extend to preventing all conceivable dangers, but only those that are unforeseeable, not readily apparent, or that exceed the usual risk of using the facility.

Duty depends on the nature of the area:
A “Free-Style Zone” is not a traffic route; users must expect equipment and obstacles on the floor or between pillars. 

No obligation to remove equipment after each use:
The Court accepted evidence that slacklines are regularly left tensioned for practical reasons and that constant removal would be unreasonable.

Distinction from the Karlsruhe OLG decision:
The Karlsruhe case involved a slackline stretched across a public road/footpath—a genuine traffic route—triggering different safety obligations. This distinction is decisive

In 2018, the claimant, aged 74, moved from one area of a fitness studio to another and entered the studio’s “Free-Style Zone,” where users can freely take equipment and perform functional exercises. A red slackline approximately 6–8 meters long was stretched between two pillars.

The claimant alleged the slackline was tensioned at 15–20 cm and unmarked, constituting a hidden tripping hazard. She fell over it, suffering tibia and fibula fractures.

The studio (defendant) argued the slackline was tensioned at about 50 cm, clearly visible, and commonly used in this zone. A staff member testified that she regularly set it up at knee height (~50 cm) and that constant removal after every short use was impractical.

The Regional Court dismissed the claim; the claimant appealed.

Claimant:

The slackline was tensioned at ankle height and was an unexpected obstacle.
Leaving it tensioned without marking violated the operator’s safety obligations.
Users of a general movement area cannot be expected to anticipate such a low obstacle.
Referred to OLG Karlsruhe (14 U 60/16), arguing slacklines constitute obstacles requiring special caution.
Studio staff should have removed the slackline after use or marked it conspicuously.

Defendant (fitness studio):

The slackline was tensioned ~50 cm high and clearly visible due to its signal-red color.
The Free-Style Zone is a freely configurable training area, not a traffic route, and obstacles are expected.
Users frequently leave equipment; constant removal is unreasonable.
The claimant had previously seen the slackline and was aware of its presence.
No breach of contractual or tortious duties occurred.

The Higher Regional Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no breach of the duty of care.

Key points:

Visibility of the slackline:
Evidence showed it was tensioned at about 50 cm and in bright red. It was clearly visible even from a distance and not a hidden danger.
Nature of the area:
The Free-Style Zone is an open functional training space where users must expect equipment and obstacles. It is not comparable to a traffic route.
User’s duty of attention:
A reasonably attentive gym user should look out for equipment and other users in such an area. The claimant admitted having seen the slackline on a previous occasion.
No analogy to the Karlsruhe case:
That case involved a slackline stretched across a public bicycle/footpath. The present case concerns an indoor exercise area with entirely different expectations.
No requirement for special marking or constant removal:
Since the slackline was already highly visible, additional marking was unnecessary. Permanent removal after each use would be impractical.

Factual Finding on Slackline Height: The court accepted the defendant's evidence that the slackline was tensioned at about 50 cm, finding the testimony of the studio's sports team leader credible and plausible, as a lower height would make the slackline unsuitable for its purpose.

Conclusion:
The accident resulted from an ordinary, recognizable risk inherent to the activity environment. No breach of duty—therefore no liability.The appeal was dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to bear the costs.

This judgment illustrates the limits of operator liability in sports and recreational facilities under German law. Courts distinguish sharply between hidden or unusual hazards, which must be prevented, and obvious, easily avoidable risks, for which users bear their own responsibility.

The decision also shows that slacklining, unlike in the Karlsruhe public-path case, is not per se considered an extraordinary or unforeseeable obstacle. Instead, the court focuses on the context of the activity zone, the visibility of the equipment, and the reasonable expectations of users.

For facility operators, the case highlights the evidentiary value of: high-visibility equipment, clear zoning of training areas.

This judgment may be compared with the Karlsruhe OLG case, which reached a different outcome due to the slackline being placed across a public traffic route, illustrating how context drives liability assessments.