Austrian climber convicted after girlfriend froze to death on Grossglockner

In January 2025 on Austria’s highest peak, Grossglockner, an experienced mountaineer identified in court as Thomas P was found guilty of gross negligent manslaughter after his partner, Kerstin G, died of hypothermia. The verdict, delivered by Judge Norbert Hofer, imposed a five-month suspended sentence and a €9,600 fine. Prosecutors said severe conditions, including winds up to 74 km/h and a windchill around -20C, made the situation life-threatening. The ruling focused on the defendant’s role as the more experienced climber and whether he should have turned back or sought help earlier.

• The defendant received a five-month suspended sentence and a €9,600 fine following a January 2025 climb on Grossglockner.
• Victim Kerstin G died of hypothermia; rescuers reported conditions of -8C with windchill near -20C and gusts up to 74 km/h (45 mph).
• Court timetable: webcam shows the pair climbing at 21:00 on 18 January; a police helicopter passed about 22:30; a call to mountain police was made at 00:35 on 19 January; prosecutors say the man left the victim at about 02:00.
• Judge Norbert Hofer, an experienced climber and rescue volunteer, said Kerstin G was far less experienced than Thomas P and that the pair should have abandoned the attempt.
• The prosecution argued Thomas P acted as the de facto guide and failed to call for timely assistance; the defence said the couple initially appeared able to continue and that Kerstin later urged him to seek help.
• The trial included testimony from a former partner, Andrea B, who said she had been left alone on an earlier Grossglockner tour in 2023.
• Rescuers described finding Kerstin G suspended upside down on a rock face; they said stronger wind could have pushed her over the south face.

Background

Grossglockner, at Austria’s highest elevation, is a frequent objective for alpine climbers but poses acute winter hazards: steep ice, rapid weather shifts and exposed ridgelines. Winter ascents require specific experience in cold, route management, and turnback decisions; differences in partner skill levels increase objective risk. Austrian courts have in recent years grappled with when negligent decisions on mountains cross into criminal liability, balancing personal responsibility with the inherent dangers of high-altitude sport. Mountain rescue services, volunteer and professional, are regularly stretched by incidents that begin as recreational outings and become life-or-death emergencies.

The legal framework in Austria allows criminal charges such as gross negligent manslaughter when conduct falls markedly below expected care and foreseeability. Media and social reactions can influence public perception, and the court said it noted social media commentary as a mitigating context in this case. The judge’s own rescue background was highlighted in coverage, shaping public attention on technical mountaineering judgment. Both prosecution and defence referenced webcam imagery and helicopter footage that tracked parts of the ascent and descent timeline.

Main Event

The climb began on 18 January 2025; webcam stills presented at trial showed torchlights on the route at about 21:00. A police helicopter flew over later that night, around 22:30, capturing video that prosecutors say still showed the pair progressing without distress signals. Prosecutors maintain the man failed to use available means to summon rescue when conditions deteriorated. Defense counsel contested aspects of the timeline, saying the pair appeared capable and close to the summit when problems emerged.

According to evidence cited in court, conditions worsened and Kerstin G became exhausted near the summit. The defence says she asked Thomas P to go for help; he later claimed to have called mountain police at 00:35 on 19 January. Prosecutors dispute the nature of that call, arguing it was not an emergency notification and that further delay occurred. Court testimony and webcam frames show the defendant reaching the summit, descending the far side, and later returning; prosecutors say he left Kerstin behind at about 02:00.

Rescue teams from Bergrettung Kals located Kerstin G and described finding her suspended head-down from a rock face. One rescuer told the court they were astonished she had not been blown over the south face by the strong gusts. The rescue account, presented in open court, underpinned the prosecution case about the immediacy of peril and the need for earlier intervention. The defence acknowledged the tragic outcome but stressed the couple did not initially consider themselves in acute danger and disputed claims about what was communicated to police.

Analysis & Implications

The conviction highlights a broader legal and ethical question: when do split-second decisions by outdoor participants become a matter for criminal law? Courts must weigh subjective judgment under stress against objective standards expected of those leading or more experienced on technical routes. In this case, the judge pointed to a clear experience gap and the defendant’s role as the more skilled climber to justify criminal accountability. That sets a potential precedent for future cases where an experienced partner’s choices are alleged to have contributed to a death.

Practically, the ruling could influence behaviour in alpine communities: more conservative turnback choices, clearer pre-trip agreements about leadership and emergency plans, and increased use of emergency beacons or earlier radio contact. Mountain rescue organizations may see renewed calls for public education on partner selection, risk assessment and the limits of personal capability in winter conditions. Conversely, some climbers will warn against overcriminalizing sport where objective danger is inherent and unpredictable.

Internationally, the case has prompted debate in mountaineering circles about consent, autonomy and shared decision-making on expeditions. Jurisdictions vary in how they approach criminal liability for deaths in adventure sports; Austria’s decision to convict on gross negligent manslaughter will be referenced by lawyers and safety bodies discussing legal duties in guide-client and partner relationships. The case remains subject to appeal, so its longer-term legal impact will depend on higher-court review and how appellate courts interpret evidence standards for negligence in alpine contexts.

Comparison & Data

The table summarises the principal numerical facts placed before the court. These figures framed assessments of exposure and response time: subzero air temperatures combined with high winds drastically reduced survival margins and made delayed rescue inherently more dangerous. Video and webcam time stamps formed a central part of reconstruction but were subject to differing interpretations by prosecution and defence.

Reactions & Quotes

The judge noted the defendant was an excellent alpinist but that his partner’s winter experience was far below his.

Judge Norbert Hofer (court statement)

Context: Judge Hofer, who volunteers with mountain and helicopter rescue teams, stressed the disparity in ability as a key reason the pair should have turned back. That observation underpinned the court’s assessment of responsibility.

We were amazed that she remained in that position; if the wind had been stronger she would have fallen over the south face.

Bergrettung Kals rescuer (court testimony)

Context: Rescue testimony described the state in which the body was found and highlighted how a small change in conditions could have produced a different outcome, reinforcing prosecutorial claims about the immediacy of danger.

The couple found themselves in a really difficult and stressful situation, but Kerstin was not inexperienced, she knew what she was getting into.

Kurt Jelinek, defence lawyer

Context: The defence argued that both climbers had accepted the risks and that the situation deteriorated rapidly, framing the defendant’s actions as tragic rather than criminally culpable.

Unconfirmed

• The exact content of the 00:35 call to mountain police is disputed between rescuers and the defence; court records show differing accounts.
• The prosecutor’s claim that the defendant left the victim at 02:00 is based on webcam and testimony but the defence contests the characterization of timing and intent.
• Social media accounts and reports cited in court influenced public perception, but their factual accuracy varies and remains partially unverified.

Bottom Line

The conviction of Thomas P underscores the legal risk facing more experienced partners who lead or guide in hazardous alpine environments: courts may hold them criminally accountable when decisions are judged to be grossly negligent. The case illustrates how objective measures such as weather readings, webcam timestamps and rescue testimony can be pivotal in reconstructing events and assigning responsibility. For the climbing community, the ruling is a reminder to formalise responsibilities, carry reliable distress equipment, and adopt conservative turnback criteria when partners differ in skill.

Because the verdict is open to appeal, its definitive legal implications will depend on higher-court review. Regardless of outcome, the incident is likely to prompt renewed emphasis on pre-trip planning, clear communication among partners, and training for winter alpine conditions to reduce the chance of similar tragedies.

Sources

• BBC News (media report summarising court proceedings and official statements)
• Foto-Webcam.eu (webcam images cited in reporting)