Climber Faces Homicide Charges After His Partner Dies. When Does a Bad Decision Become a Crime?
On January 18, Thomas Plamberger, 36, and his girlfriend, Kerstin Gurtner, 33, were attempting a technical overnight winter ascent of the Grossglockner (3,798m/12,461ft), Austria’s highest mountain. The following morning, Plamberger was safely off the mountain, but Gurtner still lay some 100 feet below the summit. When she became too exhausted to safely descend, Plamberger reportedly left her to seek help. By the time rescuers reached her the following day, she had frozen to death.
Last week, the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office completed its investigation and charged Plamberger with grossly negligent homicide. If convicted, he faces up to three years in prison.
So what really happened on the Grossglockner? I pored over the police reports, the defense’s account, and Austrian law, then talked to veteran alpine guides to try to uncover who was really at fault on January 18. My analysis also yielded some lessons that all climbers can take away from this incident.
An overnight ascent, in the dead of winter, under abominable conditions
Two slightly different accounts exist regarding what occurred on the mountain on the evening of January 18. One comes from the police, the other comes from Plamberger and his legal defense. The case won’t go to trial until February 19, 2026, so much of what occurred on the mountain remains speculation.
Plamberger’s official statement to the police has not been made public in its entirety. However, according to an account his defense attorney, Kurt Jelinek, published five months after the incident, the two climbers were equally capable and planned their climb together. Jelinek said that, in his client’s view, both he and Gurtner considered themselves “sufficiently experienced, adequately prepared, and well-equipped.”
They began their climb at 6:45 a.m, attempting to summit the peak via its Southwest Ridge, known as the Stüdlgrat, which roughly goes at UIAA III-IV (5.4). They planned to return via the slightly easier normal route, which descends to the southeast over Austria’s third-highest peak, Kleinglockner (3,770m/12,370ft). It passes a mountain hut known as the Erzherzog Johann, at 3,450m (11,319ft).
By 1:30 p.m. Plamberger and Gurtner had arrived at what is known as the Frühstücksplatzerl (“Breakfast Spot”) at 3,550 meters (11,647ft) on the Stüdlgrat. This popular rest point, on the ridge some 1,000 vertical feet before the summit, marks the beginning of the hardest climbing on the route. It also marks a crucial turnaround point, which the defense’s account acknowledges. “Since neither the woman nor [Plamberger] were exhausted or overwhelmed, they continued on,” the account states.
At this point, the defense’s account skips ahead some nine hours, to 10:30 p.m., when the two climbers are still climbing toward the summit. It is possible the party believed it would be faster or safer to go up and over the mountain to the hut, than to descend the technical ridge in darkness. In any case, rescuers in the valley below could see their headlamps high on the mountain. They captured a series of photos that have gone viral. Weather, by this point, had soured dramatically. Wind speeds crested 46 miles per hour and temperatures descended to -4 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill.
Sometime between 10:30 p.m. and 10:50 p.m. (the two accounts differ), an alpine police dispatched a helicopter to aid the couple. When it flew over and shone its lights on them, Plamberger made no signs of distress, and the couple continued climbing. Plamberger’s defense also acknowledges this. “Since both were feeling well and were not far from the summit, there was no emergency and therefore no such signal was given,” says his attorney.
However, the defense’s account alleges that as soon as the helicopter left, Gurtner’s health deteriorated. She “suddenly showed increasing signs of exhaustion.” Plamberger calls this development “completely unexpected and objectively unforeseeable.”
The prosecution notes that the alpine rescue services made “several attempts” to contact Lamberger after the police helicopter flew over him, to which he did not respond, though he had service and received the calls. (Plamberger’s attorney says his client “hadn’t noticed [the calls], because his cell phone ‘only vibrated slightly for incoming calls and messages.’”)
Finally, some two hours after the helicopter flight, at 12:35 a.m., the rescuers received a return call from Plamberger. Accounts of what transpired on this call differ. According to the police, the conversation was “unclear” and Plamberger then put his phone back into his pocket on silent. Plamberger, meanwhile, argues that after this call, “he was convinced the mountain police officer was aware of the seriousness of the situation and that rescue was urgently needed.”
The couple, who had kept climbing “to stay warm,” were by this point on a snow ramp roughly 100 feet below Grossglockner’s summit, which is marked by a large metal cross. Plamberger’s defense says that, after spending the next hour and a half hunkered below the summit, he and Gurtner decided that their best option was for Plamberger to descend alone, to the Erzherzog Johann Hut, to find other climbers and get help. He left her at roughly 2:00 a.m., and did not make a second call to rescue services until 3:30 a.m.
On this call, he informed them that he’d had to leave Gurtner behind. He “suggested sending another helicopter” to get her. But by now, the storms were so bad that a helicopter rescue was out of the question. When rescuers arrived at Gurtner’s location on foot the following morning, they found her frozen to death.
What is “grossly negligent homicide”? Will Thomas Plamberger go to prison?
As part of the prosecution’s investigation, they confiscated the two climbers’ cell phones and sport watches, questioned witnesses, and evaluated photographs and videos from the incident. The charge ultimately brought against him, Vergehen der grob fahrlässigen Tötung (“grossly negligent homicide” Criminal Code § 81), is more grievous than manslaughter or negligent homicide. It is among the most severe charges one can receive concerning the death of another individual.
Austrian attorney’s office Harlander & Partner explains that charges of grossly negligent homicide are warranted only when one person causes the death of another “through exceptionally and conspicuously negligent conduct.” There must be an “almost indifferent” disregard for basic, elementary safety rules, and the danger must have been “obvious and foreseeable.” (Another example of grossly negligent homicide is driving a car while intoxicated and killing someone.)
The prosecution argues Plamberger made nine separate mistakes that collectively amount to grossly negligent homicide. The first was bringing Gurtner on their trip in the first place, “despite the woman’s inexperience, [and the fact that she] had never undertaken an alpine high-altitude tour of this length, difficulty and altitude, and despite the challenging winter conditions.”
A key discrepancy between the positions of the defense and prosecution is the ratio of experience between the two climbers. Plamberger’s defense argues that they were equal partners, of similar fitness and alpine experience. The prosecution says this was not the case. Due to the disparity in experience, the prosecution argues that Plamberger acted as the “responsible leader” (verantwortlicher Führer) of the trip.
They also allege the pair started at least two hours too late, lacked sufficient emergency gear, and didn’t turn back in time when weather worsened. The prosecution also points out that not only did Plamberger fail to make an emergency call before nightfall, but also didn’t call until 12:35 a.m. They add that Plamberger had Gurtner climbing in soft snowboard boots (she carried a splitboard for the descent), unsuitable for mixed climbing in winter conditions. Other evidence of gross negligence, according to the prosecution, is the fact that he did not signal for distress when the helicopter flew over, and that he then kept his phone on silent and ignored calls from rescue services.
(It’s worth noting that helicopter rescue in Austria is not covered under the country’s public insurance. Without rescue insurance or an alpine club membership, it can cost thousands of dollars. In cases of gross negligence, rescued parties must pay the full cost of their rescue.)
Finally, before he left her on the summit at 2:00 a.m., Plamberger “failed to move his girlfriend to a sheltered spot to protect her from heat loss.” He “neither used her bivouac sack nor the available emergency blankets to protect her from further cooling, nor did he remove her heavy backpack and splitboard.”
What can we learn? What do mountain guides have to say?
Plamberger remains innocent until proven guilty. Although charges have been filed, it’s hard to say exactly what really happened on the Grossglockner until the case goes to trial in February. His attorney did not respond to requests for comment, but over the weekend, I called up a few experienced alpine guides to hear their take on the tragedy.
Argentinian twins and IFGMA guides Willie and Damian Benegas have led expeditions around the world for more than 30 years, and participated in a number of high-profile rescue operations. They pointed out that it isn’t unheard of for experienced climbers to descend alone to retrieve help. It’s also challenging for one person to descend mountain terrain carrying the full, unresponsive weight of another, the brothers explained. “The real mistakes began the day before,” said Damian. “The mistakes began when he decided to take her to climb this mountain, in winter, on this technical route. When they decided to leave late, knowing the weather was nasty, when they didn’t turn back sooner, and on and on.”
Willie and Damian said the most damning aspect of Plamberger’s narrative is that he doesn’t describe what went on in the gap between 1:30 p.m.. That’s when he and Gunter decided to continue up from the turnaround point at 3,550 meters (11,647ft). Nine hours later—and five hours after sunset—at 10:30 p.m., they were still climbing, and ignored the helicopter sent to aid them. Plamberger waving off the helicopter (something he doesn’t dispute he did), at this point, is almost impossible to justify. “They were clearly in trouble,” said Willie.
Plamberger argues that everything that had been fine until right after the helicopter left, when his partner “suddenly showed increasing signs of exhaustion,” which seemed to him “completely unexpected” and “objectively unforeseeable.” This claim is rather ludicrous. “And the fact that he didn’t call until 12:30 a.m.?” Willie said. “If they prove he had a signal, then what’s his defense? I don’t see it.”
Both guides said the incident seemed a hallmark case of summit fever. “Some people, when things start to go wrong, their first response is, ‘We’re ok! We can do it!’” Willie said. Damian recalled an incident on Lhotse (8,516m/27,940ft) in 2012. While descending from the summit late in the day, he encountered a Czech climber jumaring up the fixed lines without any ice tools.
Damian, who had fixed the lines on the mountain, told the climber, “Hey, we didn’t fix all the way to the summit, you still have 150 meters that you’ll have to climb without fixed lines, and it’s late, you should go down.” Although he had no ice tool, the man rebuffed him. He was going to the summit no matter what. Damian said he tried to reason with the climber, but eventually, “I said, ‘Fuck it,’ and I gave him my ice tool, because I didn’t want him to fall off. The guy took the tool and went up alone. He never came back.” (The climber in this incident was Milan Sedláček. His body was recovered from Lhotse’s summit last year.)
Frédéric Degoulet, a French IFMGA guide and Piolet d’Or-winning alpinist, told me that while any one of the decisions Plamberger made on the Grossglockner may not have been fatal in isolation. But compounded, these poor decisions resulted in a grievous scenario. “It’s one mistake, followed by another and another and another,” said Degoulet. He added that ego, a reluctance to admit to one bad call, and instead push forward with a second one, likely played a role.
“It’s very easy to dig yourself into a hole with bad decisions in the mountains,” Degoulet explained. “You dig, dig, dig, you’re ashamed to admit you’re wrong, and then you’re in a position where it’s too late.” The incident reminded Degoulet of the 2018 Haute Route Disaster, when a group of nine skiers followed their guide into a brutal storm. Seven, including the guide, died of hypothermia.
The Benegas brothers explained that a climbing team—whether guide and client, husband and wife, friend and friend, or random partners who met at the gym—is only as strong as its weakest member. Therefore, the onus is on the more experienced member to recognize this. “If you have more experience and fitness, your job is not to bring your partner to your level,” said Damian. “Your job is to go down to their level.”
He added that climbing with a romantic partner can lead to an inherently fraught, complex dynamic. This is particularly true if one climber has significantly more or less experience than the other. “I don’t know what their relationship was like, outside of this climb,” he said, “but when you have male-female relationships climbing together, we see a lot of things go wrong.” One party may be eager to please, another eager to impress, and at the end of the day, no one is thinking rationally.
Although it seems likely Gurtner was the less experienced of the two, Degoulet added that she may have been able to save herself if she’d put her foot down. Presumably, she could have flagged down the police helicopter herself when it came to check on them. Or she could have called for help using her own phone. But instead, she seemed to have trusted Plamberger to make smart decisions until it was too late. “You need to always listen to the voice you have in your head,” Degoulet said. “As soon as you have doubts, express them. The mountains will always be there.”
And should Plamberger have stayed with Gurtner past 2:00 a.m., once his string of bad decisions had landed them in a fatal situation? Hard to say.
“That’s a moral question,” said Damian. “It’s mountaineering’s million dollar question, and there is no easy answer.”
“The only way you don’t have to answer that question, is to avoid putting yourself there in the first place,” Willie added.
The post Climber Faces Homicide Charges After His Partner Dies. When Does a Bad Decision Become a Crime? appeared first on Climbing.