Federal Court rejects damages claim over hiking accident

More than CHF370,000 was at stake when a family hike in the Glarus mountains reached Switzerland’s highest court. The Federal Court has rejected a woman’s claim against her cousin, ending a dispute that began with a branch being moved from a mountain path.

The cousins were walking together in eastern Switzerland when one of the men bent a branch away from the trail to clear the route. The branch then swung back and struck the cousin walking behind him on the head. She said the impact caused serious injuries and pursued compensation through the courts.

The case moved from the courts in Glarus to the canton’s High Court and finally to Lausanne. In a judgment recently published and reported on September 29, 2026, the Federal Court upheld the cantonal ruling in favour of the cousin who had handled the branch.

The decision turns on the court’s assessment of fault. The judges found that the man could not reasonably have anticipated that the branch, as it bent away, would hit a relative who was several metres behind him. That finding meant the legal basis for damages was absent, despite the seriousness of the injury described in the proceedings.

The branch was being moved to clear the path, according to the account summarised in the Federal Court judgment. One cousin bent it out of the way as the group walked through the Glarus mountains. The woman behind him was struck when the branch moved back across the route.

The available report does not identify the cousins by name or give a precise description of the woman’s medical diagnosis. It states that she suffered serious head injuries and subsequently brought legal action against the cousin who had held the branch.

Her claim exceeded CHF370,000, and she also requested CHF20,000 in legal costs. The case therefore involved more than a disagreement over an awkward moment on a trail. It required the courts to examine whether a person who takes an ordinary, apparently helpful action during a hike should bear financial responsibility for an unexpected injury.

Both the Glarus High Court and the Federal Court answered that question in the negative on the facts before them. The courts did not find that moving vegetation from the path, by itself, created liability. Their assessment focused on whether the cousin should have anticipated the branch’s movement and the position of the hiker behind him.

The courts rejected liability because the impact was not foreseeable, according to the ruling as reported by Swissinfo. The Federal Court said the cousin could not have foreseen that the branch would bend away and then strike the woman behind him.

That reasoning preserved the decision of the High Court of the canton of Glarus. The Federal Court’s role in the case was to review the cantonal judgment, and the Lausanne judges found no basis to overturn its conclusion that the branch-holding cousin was not at fault.

The ruling does not erase the injury or decide that the incident was harmless. It resolves the narrower legal issue of whether this cousin was responsible for the resulting loss under the circumstances established by the courts. The report does not state the full medical evidence, the precise amount of the woman’s financial loss, or whether other insurance arrangements were involved.

For hikers, the practical message is limited but clear: liability depends on the conduct and the surrounding circumstances, including what a person could reasonably anticipate. The court’s finding rested on the distance between the two cousins and the unexpected way the branch moved. It should not be read as a general ruling that every trail obstruction can be handled without care.