A 39-year-old climber is facing trial in Innsbruck over the death of his girlfriend during a winter ascent of Grossglockner, the highest peak in Austria. Thomas Plamberger has been charged with gross negligent manslaughter following the January 19, 2025 tragedy that claimed the life of 33-year-old Kerstin Gurtner. Her body was discovered approximately 150 feet below the mountain’s 12,460-foot summit after severe overnight weather conditions swept across the area. Plamberger has pleaded not guilty, insisting the incident was a devastating accident rather than a criminal act. The case has drawn significant public attention, raising difficult questions about responsibility, risk, and decision-making in extreme alpine environments.

Court proceedings have outlined the sequence of events leading up to Gurtner’s death. Prosecutors allege that the couple encountered serious challenges in the early hours of the morning as they approached the summit. Gurtner, described as the less experienced climber, reportedly began struggling in deteriorating conditions. Temperatures dropped to around minus 8 degrees Celsius, with windchill making it feel closer to minus 20. According to authorities, Plamberger left her around 2 a.m. to seek assistance and did not return for several hours. Rescue teams reached the scene the next morning but were unable to revive her. In testimony, Plamberger stated that Gurtner urged him to go for help, recalling her final words as encouraging him to “go now” in hopes of saving them both.

The prosecution argues that Plamberger’s greater mountaineering experience and his role in organizing the climb placed a heightened duty of care on him. Officials contend he should have ensured safer conditions before attempting the summit, particularly given the winter weather forecast. They allege he failed to move Gurtner to a more sheltered location or provide additional protective equipment that might have helped her withstand the freezing temperatures. Prosecutors also question whether emergency services were contacted promptly, noting claims that some calls were delayed and that attempts to reach Plamberger by phone went unanswered during critical hours.

A judge overseeing the case reportedly described elements of Plamberger’s account as inconsistent, further intensifying scrutiny of his actions that night. Prosecutors have pressed him on why more urgent measures were not taken as the weather worsened and why he left Gurtner alone in such extreme conditions. They argue that his decisions may have significantly reduced her chances of survival. The charge of gross negligent manslaughter hinges on whether his conduct departed substantially from what would be expected of a reasonably experienced climber under similar circumstances.

Plamberger’s defense team firmly disputes these claims, maintaining that the decision for him to descend and seek help was mutual and made under extreme stress. His lawyer has characterized the tragedy as a “fateful accident,” emphasizing that mountaineering inherently involves unpredictable dangers, particularly in winter. The defense argues that Plamberger acted with the intention of saving his partner and that hindsight should not transform a desperate survival decision into criminal liability. They also highlight the couple’s close relationship and shared passion for climbing.

Gurtner’s mother has publicly defended both her daughter’s competence and Plamberger’s character, expressing sorrow over what she views as harsh public judgment. She has suggested that the tragedy should not automatically be interpreted as wrongdoing. As the trial continues in Innsbruck, the court will weigh testimony, weather data, rescue timelines, and expert analysis to determine whether the heartbreaking events on Grossglockner were the result of criminal negligence or a tragic accident in one of Europe’s most unforgiving alpine environments.