Austrian climber found guilty after leaving girlfriend to die on mountain

[vetprob]

Reported on the BBC - verdict is in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k1xkllknmo

I wonder if this has implications for climbing in the future or if it's country specific. They weren't in the death zone so I wonder if that makes a difference too. So many times we read about climbers being unable to help their fallen teammates.

It's still curious to me why the guy didn't leave her with some protective gear, knowing she was in trouble.

From the radio article earlier this week it all sounded very strange. He was more experienced but let her wear inappropriate footwear, didn't turn back, didn't use his phone even though there was a signal etc.
It did sound grossly negligent.

It's a curious case and I wonder if it will set a precedent. Is the more experienced person always expected to be legally responsible for the safety of the less experienced person?

For example my son is a national level open water swimmer, if he is swimming with someone less experienced and they get into trouble would he be held accountable?

I think there should be a distinction between an official guide or leader of a group doing an organised activity and a couple or friendship group.

He doesn't seem to have acted in the best way to ensure a better outcome but is that criminal or just stupid? If someone who knows CPR but doesn't use it in an emergency situation a criminal? I think in France there is a crime of not helping someone but I don't think we have the same in the UK.

The reason the man didn't leave her with protective gear was because he wanted to harm her. It''s an extreme form of domestic violence in an outdoor setting.

I think it's a huge can of worms and will lead to more experienced mountaineers being unwilling to go climbing with less experienced friends. Effectively reducing access to climbing for many.

I don't have a view on this guy or his motivations, but I worry about what it will lead to in a wider sense, if whoever is the most experienced is deemed to be responsible for any other fully compos mentis adults they happen to be with.

His behaviour is extremely odd. And yet he got mitigation for 'losing someone close'. A previous girlfriend recounts a similar story a couple of years earlier. Hopefully this guy won't do this again.

Yes I think this was deliberate from the outset ( effectively murder) but the prosecutors can’t prove it so they’ve gone for this other angle instead which likely will have unintended consequences if used as precedent.

NB. In mountaineering, the Death Zone refers to heights above 8000m. The highest mountain in Austria is 3798m.

Apparently one of his exes was a witness at the trial, said he left her alone on the same mountain after an argument, with her headlamp running out of battery.

www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/20/austria-climber-convicted-manslaughter-girlfriend-kerstin-g-grossglockner-mountain

I think that if A says 'i don't feel confident, I'm only doing this because you are more experienced and say you will look after me' and B agrees, then B does have a duty of care whether or not they are being paid to do it.

This chap i heard on the radio made 9 seriously bad choices. 9. anyone might think he did it on purpose but they just couldn't prove it

It also didn't say who brought the case, I don't think. Maybe her family?

Walking off from the previous girlfriend in the same way probably didn’t help his defence.

There is definitely a discussion around individual personal responsibility and being responsible for others who are very much less experienced/capable. If this chap had refused to accompany her given that she wasn’t wearing decent gear and wasn’t experienced or fit enough then I doubt she’d have gone on her own or with someone else. When she was in trouble, deciding to continue to the summit and then onwards rather than stay or go back the same way, and the lack of emergency calls, or leaving the phone with her so she could call, I guess that all added up to the gross negligence level for the court.

If it’s a criminal case then the state brought the case- unless Austria is v different?

You hear about it often in the death zone but you would probably be less able to think straight and help people at that altitude. So this guy doesn't have that excuse.

I have been following this because I was in a relationship with a climber recently and I absolutely can see how this happened.

Some people (mainly men) become so focussed on achieving their goals, sending their routes, that they just breeze past the concerns of the person they are with. They literally think of that person as another facilitator of their dreams.

If this man had cared for or put his girlfriend first, they would never have been there. But she will have trusted him as the more experienced one.

Extremely sad.

I also wonder why they have redacted full names.

Suspended sentence and a relatively small fine seems lenient to me. Doubt it will put any well intentioned climbers off.

Did you read the bit about him doing something similar with a previous girlfriend?

I have wondered if his cognition would also have been impaired by the altitude, cold and exposure? Hence not wrapping her in the blanket etc

But him leaving a previous girlfriend in similar circumstances speaks very badly to his character and ability to respond properly to emergencies that might arise in a mountain environment.

Thank you for the link.

It seems to me the judge was lenient in this case!

Whose names? The Times has them in fill

• Thomas Plamberger
• kerstin Gertner

@AllJoyAndNoFun thank you, hadn't read that one.

Yeah it’s weird- some papers seem to have redacted and others haven’t

A 5 month suspended sentence is insulting.

I thought this was too lenient and with all the press I assumed he would get a much heavier punishment.

Kerstin’s mum has said she doesn’t agree Thomas should be punished but I haven’t seen any comments from her since the result.

The previous situation with the ex-gf makes it much more likely he did something similar to Kerstin, rather than a climb gone wrong. When I first heard about the case I thought it was unfair to go to court just because he was the more able climber, but there are so many things he didn’t do, or avoided doing that makes the situation much more suspicious.

Awful. Even if killing her wasn’t deliberate he should have received a custodial sentence.

less than 10k for her life.

Don’t understand the quoted views of her mum given the evidence of his ex girlfriend about his past actions in nearly the same scenario.

It sounds much worse than just a climb that went wrong. She had the wrong equipment, he left her alone while he continued to the top, he left her without blankets, he turned his phone off even though there was signal.