The Incident and Court Proceedings

A climber accused of leaving his girlfriend to die atop the Austrian Alps has revealed the details of their final conversation, bringing renewed attention to a tragic incident on Grossglockner, Austria’s highest peak. Thomas Plamberger, 39, is currently on trial in Innsbruck, facing charges of gross negligent manslaughter following the death of his girlfriend, Kerstin Gurtner, 33. The fatal incident occurred on January 19, 2025, when Gurtner perished approximately 150 feet below the mountain’s 12,460-foot summit. Authorities report that she struggled during the climb, and Plamberger claims he left her around 2 a.m. to seek help. He did not return for six and a half hours. Temperatures that night dropped to -8°C, with windchill pushing conditions to -20°C, making survival in exposed areas extremely difficult. As the case unfolds in court, both sides continue to provide contrasting narratives regarding the choices and responsibilities involved during the fatal climb.

The Final Moments

Plamberger has described what he claims were Gurtner’s final words: she allegedly shouted for him to “go, now go!” after he had spent roughly an hour and a half with her near the summit. According to Senior Public Prosecutor Hansjörg Mayr, the defendant left his girlfriend “defenseless, exhausted, hypothermic, and disoriented approximately 50 meters below the summit cross of Grossglockner.” Prosecutors argue that, as the more experienced climber and planner of the expedition, Plamberger bore responsibility for ensuring her safety. Despite Plamberger’s assertion that he left Gurtner to get help, the delay in seeking rescue—combined with the extreme environmental conditions—contributed to the fatal outcome. Rescuers eventually reached Gurtner the following morning, only to find that she had succumbed to hypothermia and exposure, highlighting the severe risks associated with high-altitude mountaineering.

 Conflicting Accounts and Legal Arguments

Plamberger has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team maintains that he left his girlfriend by “mutual agreement,” asserting that the couple had been managing the climb reasonably well before he sought assistance. However, Judge Norbert Hofer described Plamberger’s account as “inconsistent,” noting discrepancies between his version of events and other evidence presented in court. Prosecutors claim that Plamberger did not attempt to alert an alpine police helicopter that flew over them during the night, nor did he respond to emergency calls on his phone. These actions—or lack thereof—are central to the case, as they may indicate negligence in handling a dangerous high-altitude situation. The conflicting narratives have turned public attention toward not only the circumstances of Gurtner’s death but also broader questions of accountability, preparation, and decision-making during extreme climbs.

Equipment and Preparedness

Authorities have highlighted that Gurtner was inadequately equipped for the climb, noting that she wore soft snow boots that were not suited for high-altitude conditions. Prosecutors also allege that Plamberger failed to move her to a more sheltered location to protect her from the wind, nor did he provide basic survival tools such as a bivouac sleeping bag or thermal aluminum foil blankets, which could have mitigated exposure. These claims underscore the inherent dangers of alpine mountaineering, particularly when climbers face extreme cold, high winds, and limited visibility. However, Gurtner’s mother has defended her daughter’s experience and fitness, insisting to German newspaper Die Zeit that Kerstin was in top physical condition and had completed challenging climbs both independently and alongside her boyfriend. She criticized media coverage, calling it a “witch hunt” against Plamberger and stressing that her daughter’s skills should not be underestimated or dismissed.

 Personal Background and Context

Plamberger and Gurtner were reportedly planning to move in together and described their relationship as happy. Plamberger himself characterized his climbing skills as “self-taught,” emphasizing that he approached the sport with considerable experience and familiarity with alpine conditions. His lawyer, Kurt Jelinek, has called the incident a “tragic, fateful accident,” asserting that there was no intent to harm Gurtner. The couple’s personal relationship and shared climbing experience add a human dimension to the legal proceedings, illustrating the challenges inherent in balancing personal ambition, adventure, and the responsibility of guiding a partner in hazardous conditions. The court continues to weigh these factors, alongside evidence regarding Plamberger’s decisions and the extreme environmental conditions, in determining the degree of legal culpability.

Broader Implications and Public Reaction

The case has sparked international attention, highlighting not only the risks of high-altitude mountaineering but also the ethical and legal questions surrounding shared responsibility on dangerous climbs. While some observers emphasize personal accountability, others caution against rushing to judgment in a scenario where weather, terrain, and timing all contributed to a fatal outcome. The tragic story underscores the importance of preparation, communication, and emergency planning in extreme environments. At the same time, public debate continues over media representation, with family members defending both Gurtner’s experience and Plamberger’s character against what they perceive as sensationalized coverage. As the trial proceeds, the broader conversation revolves around the balance between personal risk, relational responsibility, and the unpredictable nature of high-altitude adventure, leaving society to grapple with how best to honor the deceased while evaluating accountability in extraordinary circumstances.