An Austrian court has convicted a man of manslaughter in connection with the death of his girlfriend during a mountain climb on Grossglockner, Austria’s highest peak. The case, which concluded on , highlights the complex legal questions surrounding responsibility and risk in high-altitude mountaineering.
Thomas P., 37, received a five-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €9,600 (approximately $11,300) after being found guilty of gross negligence in the death of Kerstin Gurtner, 33. Gurtner froze to death after being left alone on the mountain as Thomas P. Went to seek help, according to court documents.
The incident occurred in during an overnight ascent of the Grossglockner via the Stüdlgrat ridge. Prosecutors detailed nine separate errors made by Thomas P. During the climb, contributing to a charge of gross negligence. These included failing to bring appropriate emergency gear, such as a bivouac bag, and failing to adhere to a reasonable turnaround time, despite deteriorating weather conditions.
The court heard that the couple had fallen significantly behind schedule. Gurtner became exhausted approximately 50 meters below the summit. After midnight, Thomas P. Left her alone, intending to find assistance. She succumbed to the elements before help could arrive.
During the trial, the prosecution emphasized that Gurtner was not adequately protected while left alone. She possessed a bivouac bag and emergency blanket in her backpack, but Thomas P. Did not utilize them, explaining to the court that the situation was particularly stressful. He also faced criticism for his initial call to mountain police, which prosecutors argued did not clearly convey the urgency of the situation and for subsequently failing to respond to follow-up calls seeking confirmation of the need for rescue.
Thomas P. Defended his actions, stating that his mobile phone was switched to airplane mode to conserve battery power. However, the court found this explanation insufficient given the circumstances.
The case has sparked debate within the Austrian mountaineering community regarding the extent of legal liability in the mountains. Traditionally, climbers are considered to assume a high degree of personal risk. However, the prosecution successfully argued that Thomas P. Was effectively acting as a mountain guide due to his greater experience, thereby incurring a heightened duty of care towards his less experienced partner.
Presiding Judge Norbert Hofer, himself an experienced mountaineer, acknowledged that Thomas P. Had genuinely intended to seek help. “I do not see you as a murderer. I do not see you as cold-hearted,” Hofer stated during the sentencing. However, he emphasized the significant disparity in mountaineering experience between the two individuals, asserting that Gurtner had placed her trust in Thomas P.’s judgment. “She had placed herself in your care,” Hofer said.
Thomas P. Expressed remorse for his actions, stating, “What I want to say is that I am so terribly sorry.” He has three days to appeal the verdict.
The Austrian Alpine Safety Board reports that approximately 8,400 mountain accidents occur annually in Austria, resulting in between 250 and 300 fatalities. While climbing accidents are relatively common, prosecutions resulting from them are rare, making this case particularly noteworthy.
The outcome of this trial may have broader implications for mountaineering practices and legal interpretations of responsibility in alpine environments, particularly concerning the duties of experienced climbers towards less experienced companions. The question of whether a climber assumes a greater legal responsibility when leading a less experienced partner remains a key point of discussion following the verdict.
