How Austrian court may redefine legal risks behind alpine climbing everywhere

An Austrian court has delivered a rare manslaughter verdict in a case stemming from a fatal mountaineering accident, drawing international attention by climbing enthusiasts and raising questions about criminal liability in high-risk outdoor sports.

The case centers on the January 2025 death of Kerstin G., who froze to death near the summit of the 3,798-meter Grossglockner, Austria’s highest peak. Her boyfriend, Thomas P., an amateur mountaineer, was accused of contributing to her death by failing to adequately prepare her for the climb and by leaving her alone in severe weather conditions to seek help.

The court in Innsbruck found the 37-year-old guilty of manslaughter on February 20, handing him a five-month suspended sentence and a €9,400 fine for gross negligence, as Austrian media reports.

Prosecutors argued that Thomas P., as the more experienced climber, bore primary responsibility for the safety of the expedition. They described him as “the responsible guide for the tour” and said he failed to turn back or call for support in time. According to the prosecution, Kerstin G. died of hypothermia after being left exhausted and unprotected close to the summit in stormy winter conditions.

The woman was reportedly exposed to strong winds, and investigators said her boyfriend did not wrap her in an emergency blanket or bivouac bag, even though such equipment was in her backpack. Additional accusations included starting the climb two hours too late and failing to carry “enough emergency bivouac equipment.” 

Prosecutors also said he “allowed his girlfriend to use... snowboard soft boots, equipment that is not suitable for a high-altitude tour in mixed terrain.”

They further alleged that he attempted the ascent in the first place, despite the fact that his girlfriend had “never undertaken an Alpine tour of this length, difficulty, and altitude, and despite the challenging winter conditions.”

Innsbruck’s court also examined his actions once conditions deteriorated. In a call to mountain police, Thomas P. reportedly did not clearly communicate that the couple required rescue. Authorities said he subsequently failed to respond to return calls and messages asking whether help was needed. The defendant told the court his phone had been switched to airplane mode to conserve battery power.

The case has prompted debate in Austria and beyond, as criminal prosecutions related to mountaineering incidents are uncommon. Austrian media have described the criminal prosecution as potentially marking “a paradigm shift for mountain sports,” particularly regarding how much responsibility experienced climbers may bear for less experienced companions from now on.

By Nazrin Sadigova