Girlfriend’s Death on Mountain: Shocking Court Ruling

A 37-year-old Austrian climber left his girlfriend to freeze to death near the summit of the country’s highest mountain and now faces criminal punishment for doing what many climbers consider an impossible choice.

Story Snapshot

Thomas P convicted of manslaughter after leaving girlfriend Kerstin G on Grossglockner mountain where she died from hypothermia in minus 20-degree wind chill
Court ruled his greater experience created a legal duty of care, making him criminally liable despite being a recreational climber, not a professional guide
He received a five-month suspended sentence and €9,600 fine for gross negligence including inadequate equipment, ignoring rescue helicopter, and silencing his phone
The unprecedented verdict establishes criminal liability for recreational climbers and may reshape mountaineering safety protocols and insurance across Europe

When Experience Becomes Legal Responsibility

The Innsbruck court convicted Thomas P on February 20, 2026, establishing a precedent that relative climbing experience can create criminal liability between recreational partners. Prosecutors successfully argued Thomas P functioned as an informal guide because he possessed more mountaineering knowledge than his girlfriend. This legal framing transformed what the climbing community traditionally considers shared risk into a guide-client relationship with corresponding duty-of-care obligations. The court rejected Thomas P’s characterization of events as a tragic accident beyond his control, finding instead that his decisions constituted gross negligence worthy of criminal punishment.

A Cascade of Fatal Decisions on Austria’s Highest Peak

Thomas P and Kerstin G began their January 19, 2025, ascent of Grossglockner’s 3,798-meter summit two hours late, compressing their timeline and increasing nighttime exposure. Prosecutors documented multiple critical failures: Kerstin G climbed wearing unsuitable splitboard equipment with soft snowboard boots rather than proper mountaineering gear. The couple carried no emergency shelter, bivouac sleeping bags, or aluminum foil blankets despite forecast conditions. They ignored opportunities to turn back at established waypoints as weather deteriorated. When temperatures reached minus 8 degrees Celsius with 45 mph winds creating minus 20-degree wind chill, Kerstin G became exhausted just 50 meters below the summit.

The Six Hours That Sealed a Manslaughter Conviction

The timeline between 9:00 PM on January 19 and Thomas P’s return six and a half hours later proved decisive in court. At 10:50 PM, a police helicopter flew overhead, but Thomas P sent no distress signal. Police attempted multiple calls before Thomas P finally answered at 12:35 AM, then placed his phone on silent. He left Kerstin G at 2:00 AM to descend for help, calling rescue services at 3:30 AM with details prosecutors described as unclear. An independent mountaineering expert testified that proper emergency equipment could have kept Kerstin G alive during those critical hours. Thomas P’s ex-girlfriend provided testimony that sources described as devastating to his defense.

Setting New Standards for Recreational Climbing

Vice president of the Innsbruck regional court Klaus Genoine framed the verdict around “the liability of the guide acting as such of his own free will as a favor, which is also relevant under criminal law.” This statement signals courts may now apply professional guide standards to experienced recreational climbers who take less experienced partners into dangerous terrain. The climbing community faces uncomfortable questions about whether traditional assumptions of shared personal risk remain legally valid. Insurance products, climbing club policies, and safety protocols may require wholesale revision as the precedent spreads beyond Austria.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Mountain Liability

The suspended five-month sentence and €9,600 fine seem lenient compared to the three-year maximum Thomas P faced, yet the conviction itself represents something more consequential than punishment. Austrian law now recognizes that experience disparities between climbing partners can create enforceable duty-of-care obligations with criminal consequences for negligence. Common sense suggests anyone leading a less experienced person into life-threatening conditions bears responsibility for that person’s safety, regardless of whether money changes hands or professional credentials exist. The prosecution proved Thomas P made preventable errors that directly caused Kerstin G’s death through inadequate preparation, poor judgment, and failure to utilize available rescue resources.

39-Year-Old Climber Found Guilty of Manslaughter for Leaving Girlfriend To Freeze to Death on Austria’s Highest Peak https://t.co/L9jmkObfjX

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) February 20, 2026

The broader mountaineering community now confronts whether informal climbing partnerships require the same rigorous safety standards, equipment checks, and emergency protocols that professional guides follow. The romantic notion of adventurous couples exploring mountains together collides with the legal reality that the more experienced partner may face criminal prosecution if tragedy strikes. This case likely represents the beginning rather than the end of courts examining whether recreational high-risk activities should maintain their traditional exemption from ordinary duty-of-care standards that govern other aspects of life.