The Higher Regional Court of Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia has ruled. A female mountain biker who fell on a bike trail operated by a club and sustained significant injuries is entitled to damages from the trail’s operator. The court has not disclosed either the location of the accident or the name of the operating club. However, it is now known that the trail in question is the Flowtrail Siegen, and the defendant is the club MTB Siegerland e. V. 

Specifically, the club must cover all property damage as well as 50 percent of the non-property damage; according to the ruling, the exact amount of the latter is not yet clear, as it will only become apparent in the future. In addition, the association must pay 5,000 euros in damages and the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount of 713.76 euros.

The Siegen Regional Court, as the court of first instance, had held the mountain biker who fell fully responsible for the damages she suffered. The Higher Regional Court sees it differently: “As the party responsible for ensuring public safety, the operator of a mountain bike flow trail must not further increase the potential for danger—already present due to the terrain or artificial obstacles, of which users are aware and which they willingly ‘accept’—by an unclear route.”

Many riders have already encountered difficulties at this spot

Speed is reduced before the accident site by three wooden steps; there is a warning sign before them and a directional arrow afterward, suggesting that others have already had trouble recognizing the actual line in time. In the photo published by the Siegen Regional Court, as well as in certain videos, the section of the trail looks somewhat improvised. Several videos, some of which are even embedded on the MTB Siegerland club’s website, show other cyclists losing control at this spot.

According to the ruling, the operators themselves stated that there had been repeated instances of cyclists overestimating their abilities and being unable to follow the trail due to excessive speed. For this reason, they had installed additional caution tape to ensure that cyclists did not ride straight into the steep slope but instead veered sharply to the right.

Apparently, the barrier tape had snapped when the cyclist passed that spot—possibly due to another rider on the trail who had missed the right turn. According to the operators, this happened repeatedly, and they had to re-tension the tape regularly. The court has determined that the easily torn plastic tape neither serves as a sufficient indicator of the route nor constitutes a fall protection measure. The association therefore failed to adequately fulfill its duty of care as the trail operator. The court further ruled: “The challenge users must overcome must ultimately be limited to the trail itself—that is, the route to be ridden—and not include figuring out the course of the trail.”

Not Much Constructive in the Comments Section

The “commentariat” on mtb-news, of course, formed its opinion in a flash: A female mountain biker who can’t ride blames others for it. The fact that she’s suing for damages makes her an even worse person. This viewpoint appears in dozens of variations—sometimes condescending, sometimes simply childish—and almost always based on ignorance of the reasoning behind the ruling, the legal situation, and legal logic in general.

The club in question has not responded to Ride’s inquiry. We would have liked to know whether it has insurance that covers the damages, why it did not appeal the ruling, and, above all, what the liability for damages means for the club’s future and its trails and activities. Judging by the club’s website, activities are continuing, and operations have not been suspended. What’s also evident there is that the trails in the Siegerland region are, all in all, carefully and lovingly maintained. If only it weren’t for that difficult section in red section 7. Some people would surely also be interested in knowing whether the accident site has been made safer.

DIMB Fears Setback for Trail Projects

The DIMB takes a nuanced, critical view of the ruling. In a statement, the advocacy group explains that trail operators have a duty to ensure public safety—that is, they must ensure that their trails can be ridden safely. The trail must be predictable and clearly marked; the technical challenges must correspond to the specified difficulty level; and hazards must not appear suddenly. The duty to ensure safety applies only to man-made elements and not to natural hazards.

Regarding the case in Hamm, the DIMB writes: “In our view, based on the facts of the ruling, the person involved was traveling at a speed that did not comply with the requirement to ride at a speed appropriate for visibility and was therefore unable to react to the situation in time.”

The DIMB then explains what the unfortunate consequence of the ruling could be: Clubs run by volunteers will have to consider even more carefully whether they want to take the risk of operating a trail where accidents could occur for which they or their club could be held liable. In their own words: “For operating clubs, the ruling leads to considerable legal uncertainty.” Many publicly accessible MTB trails are maintained and cared for by volunteers. If case law sets safety requirements so high that they can no longer be met by volunteers, there is a risk that fewer new trails will be created and existing trails will be abandoned.”

The Positive Side

However, the ruling can also be used to clarify the extent of the duty to ensure public safety and to emphasize that an unclear trail layout—where there is a risk of a fall if someone takes a wrong turn—must be avoided at all costs.

A detailed article on the topic of liability for mountain bike accidents in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany can be found in Ride Issue No. 102 from April 2026.