• Thomas Plamberger faces up to three years in prison after his girlfriend Kerstin Gurtner froze to death 50 meters below Austria’s highest summit in January 2025
• Prosecutors say nine specific failures — from a late start to silencing his phone during rescue attempts — amount to grossly negligent homicide
• The defense and the victim’s mother both call the death a tragic accident, arguing the couple made decisions together as equals

INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA (TDR) — An Austrian court opened what legal experts are calling a potentially landmark Grossglockner death trial on Thursday, with experienced mountaineer Thomas Plamberger facing grossly negligent manslaughter charges after his girlfriend Kerstin Gurtner froze to death alone near the summit of Austria’s highest peak. The 33-year-old died of hypothermia in the early hours of Jan. 19, 2025, after Plamberger left her roughly 50 meters below the 3,798-meter summit cross to descend and seek help. She was found dead six and a half hours later.

The case at Innsbruck Regional Court has ignited fierce debate across the international mountaineering community over a deceptively simple question: when does a bad decision on a mountain become a crime?

The Prosecution’s Nine Errors

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office built its case over an 11-month investigation that analyzed mobile phone data, fitness trackers, summit photographs and an alpine-technical assessment. Prosecutors designated Plamberger — who they describe as considerably more experienced than Gurtner — the “responsible guide for the tour” and allege a cascade of nine critical failures that directly caused her death.

“At approximately 2am, the defendant left his girlfriend unprotected, exhausted, hypothermic, and disoriented about 50m below the summit cross of the Grossglockner. The woman froze to death.” — Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office statement

Among the alleged errors: the couple departed two hours too late for a realistic winter summit-and-return on the technically demanding Stüdlgrat Ridge route. Plamberger allowed Gurtner to use a splitboard and soft snowboard boots — equipment prosecutors called “unsuitable for a high-alpine tour in mixed terrain.” He carried no emergency bivouac gear. And critically, despite the pair becoming effectively stranded by 8:50 p.m., Plamberger allegedly made no emergency call and failed to signal a police helicopter that flew directly overhead at approximately 10:50 p.m.

“Despite the woman’s inexperience — she had never undertaken an alpine high-altitude tour of this length, difficulty and altitude — and despite the challenging winter conditions, the defendant undertook the alpine high-altitude tour to the Grossglockner via the Stüdlgrat with her in winter.” — Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The timeline prosecutors present is particularly damning. After the helicopter passed, Alpine Police attempted to reach Plamberger multiple times. He finally returned a call at 12:35 a.m., but the conversation was described as “unclear.” Prosecutors allege he then placed his phone on silent and made no further contact until 3:30 a.m., when he reported from lower on the mountain that he had left Gurtner behind. Rescuers could not reach her through the storm. When they arrived the following morning, she was dead.

Gurtner had been left in temperatures of -8°C with windchill driving conditions to -20°C, wearing inadequate footwear, without her bivouac sack or emergency blankets deployed, and with her heavy backpack and splitboard still strapped to her body. If convicted of grossly negligent homicide, Plamberger faces up to three years in prison.

The Defense: A Tragic Accident, Not a Crime

Plamberger’s attorney Kurt Jelinek has mounted a vigorous challenge to the prosecution’s narrative, calling Gurtner’s death a “tragic accident” and disputing key elements of the timeline.

“My client is deeply saddened by the death of his partner. He wishes to express his profound condolences, especially to the family of the deceased.” — Kurt Jelinek, defense attorney

The defense argues the couple planned the expedition together as equals, that Gurtner was properly equipped and capable, and that difficulties only materialized suddenly near the summit. Jelinek maintains that Plamberger did contact police and did not ignore subsequent calls from officers, directly contradicting the prosecution’s account of the critical phone exchanges. According to the defense, Plamberger left Gurtner “by mutual agreement” after the pair concluded together that his descending alone to the Erzherzog Johann Hut to find other climbers represented their best chance of survival.

Perhaps the most striking voice defending Plamberger belongs not to his legal team but to the victim’s own mother. Gertraud Gurtner told German outlet Die Zeit that the prosecution fundamentally mischaracterizes her daughter.

“It makes me angry that Kerstin is being portrayed as a naïve little thing who let herself be dragged up the mountain. I think it’s unfair how Kerstin’s boyfriend is being treated. There’s a witch hunt against him in the media and online. The two of them always made their decisions together.” — Gertraud Gurtner, Kerstin Gurtner’s mother, speaking to Die Zeit

Her intervention complicates the prosecution’s framing. If the victim’s own family rejects the characterization of Gurtner as an inexperienced follower led into danger, the court must weigh whether the state’s duty-of-care framework reflects reality — or imposes a legal fiction on two adults who chose risk together.

Why Mountaineers Are Watching

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10