Climber LEFT Girlfriend to FREEZE — Now CONVICTED

A 37-year-old Austrian climber just learned that leaving your girlfriend to freeze on a mountaintop can land you in court for manslaughter, even when you claim you were trying to save her.

Story Snapshot

Thomas P convicted of manslaughter after girlfriend Kerstin G died of hypothermia 50 meters below Austria’s highest summit in January 2025
Court found he acted as informal guide with duty of care despite being recreational climber, citing inadequate equipment, late start, and delayed rescue calls
Received five-month suspended sentence and €9,600 fine after leaving her at 2:00 AM in minus-20°C wind chill conditions
Verdict establishes unprecedented criminal liability for recreational climbers, potentially reshaping mountaineering risk assumptions across Europe

When Experience Becomes Legal Liability

The Innsbruck court convicted Thomas P not because he was a professional guide, but because his greater experience created what judges deemed an informal guide-client relationship. This legal reasoning turns traditional mountaineering assumptions on their head. For generations, climbers operated under an unwritten rule: everyone on the mountain accepts personal risk. The court disagreed. Vice president Klaus Genoine framed the case as addressing “the liability of the guide acting as such of his own free will as a favor, which is also relevant under criminal law.” That single sentence rewrites the rules for anyone who climbs with less experienced partners.

The Fatal Decisions on Grossglockner

Prosecutors built their case on a cascade of negligent choices. The couple started two hours late for Austria’s 3,798-meter peak. Kerstin G wore splitboard and soft snowboard boots, equipment wildly unsuitable for technical alpine climbing. They carried no emergency bivouac gear, no aluminum foil blankets, nothing to create shelter in deteriorating conditions. When winds hit 45 mph and temperatures dropped to minus-8°C, the wind chill plummeted to minus-20°C. At 9:00 PM, just 50 meters from the summit, Kerstin became exhausted and disoriented. A police helicopter passed overhead at 10:50 PM. Thomas sent no distress signal.

Six and a Half Hours Alone in the Dark

Thomas placed his phone on silent after police reached him at 12:35 AM. At 2:00 AM, he left Kerstin and descended to seek help. His rescue call at 3:30 AM was unclear enough that emergency services struggled to understand the severity. He returned six and a half hours later to find her dead. Defense attorneys called it a tragic accident. Prosecutors called it gross negligence. The mountaineering expert’s report sided with prosecutors, documenting how inadequate preparation and delayed response created the fatal outcome. An ex-girlfriend’s testimony, described as “the nail in the coffin,” suggested a pattern of reckless decision-making on climbs.

Personal Responsibility Meets Criminal Law

Thomas maintained his innocence throughout the trial, expressing sorrow while characterizing events as beyond his control. The evidence told a different story. Mobile phone records, sports watch data, and photographs reconstructed a timeline of choices that prioritized summit ambition over safety margins. The court acknowledged the complexity of applying criminal standards to mountaineering, an activity traditionally governed by personal risk acceptance. Yet they concluded that when one climber assumes informal leadership, criminal duty-of-care obligations follow. Thomas received a five-month suspended sentence and €9,600 fine. He walks free unless he violates probation conditions over the next three years.

Redefining Risk in the Mountains

This verdict creates a legal minefield for the climbing community. Recreational climbers now face potential prosecution when companions die if courts determine they acted as informal guides. The precedent raises immediate questions: Does taking a less experienced friend climbing create criminal liability? What equipment standards apply to recreational expeditions? When does failure to turn back become gross negligence rather than acceptable risk-taking? Insurance companies will scrutinize these questions. Climbing organizations may implement stricter protocols to shield members from liability. The Austrian climbing community confronts an uncomfortable reality: the law no longer recognizes mountaineering as a consequence-free zone where participants assume all risk.

The Unwritten Guide Contract

The prosecution’s most effective argument challenged common sense assumptions about climbing partnerships. They established that Thomas’s greater experience created an implicit guide relationship, even without formal agreement or payment. This reasoning extends professional standards into recreational contexts. Mountain guides carry insurance, follow certification protocols, and make conservative decisions because liability looms over every choice. Recreational climbers operated differently, embracing risk as inherent to the pursuit. The court collapsed that distinction. If you climb with someone less experienced, you may inherit guide-level responsibilities whether you want them or not. The legal logic makes sense from a duty-of-care perspective, but it fundamentally alters how climbers must approach informal partnerships.

What the Precedent Means for Climbers

European climbers now navigate uncertain legal territory. The verdict suggests courts will examine equipment choices, timing decisions, emergency preparedness, and rescue response timing through a negligence lens. Climbers who might have previously relied on verbal acknowledgment of shared risk must now consider whether their experience level creates legal obligations. The case may influence how climbing clubs operate, how informal partnerships form, and whether climbers purchase additional liability coverage. Organizations may require equipment checklists, turn-around time protocols, and documented risk discussions. The spontaneity that defines much recreational climbing collides with legal frameworks designed for professional guide services. Whether other jurisdictions follow Austria’s precedent remains unknown, but the climbing community watches nervously.