A court case has opened after prosecutors allege that Kerstin Gurtner was abandoned on the Grossglockner while exhausted and suffering from hypothermia. Authorities say the decision to leave her on the mountain prompted the criminal proceedings; details of the incident and the charges against the accused are being examined in court. The case centers on claims of neglect and the circumstances that led to Gurtner’s vulnerable condition on Austria’s highest peak.
Kerstin Gurtner died after being left on Grossglockner, Austria’s highest mountain, in a state rescuers called exhausted, hypothermic and disoriented. Prosecutors have opened criminal proceedings against the climber who accompanied her. The court must now decide whether the companion’s choices crossed the line from tragic mistake to criminal abandonment that contributed to her death.
Prosecutors say the companion either walked away from Gurtner or failed to give the necessary help at a time when she could no longer look after herself. Their case leans on a reconstructed timeline of the last hours, testimony from rescue personnel and medical experts.
Officials argue that severe fatigue, progressing hypothermia and confusion rendered Gurtner incapable of surviving without assistance, and that the other climber left while she was incapacitated.
At the heart of the prosecution’s argument are three questions: did the companion’s conduct cause the death, was that outcome foreseeable, and what was the companion’s mental state at the time? Documentary evidence — rescue logs, radio recordings, GPS traces and photographs — will be matched against expert analysis of how rapidly hypothermia can set in at high altitude and how impaired judgment becomes as cognition declines.
The defence paints a different picture. Lawyers describe the scene as chaotic and emphasize that split-second decisions had to be made under extreme pressure. They are expected to contest the reconstructed timeline, argue against judging actions with hindsight, and call on mountaineering and medical witnesses to offer alternative explanations for what unfolded.
Practical disputes will focus on the provenance and chain of custody for rescue records, the assumptions behind physiological models used by experts, and whether any separation or delay could realistically have been avoided given the weather and terrain. In short, the defence seeks to break the link between any omission and the fatal outcome, and to show the companion did not possess the guilty mind required for criminal liability.
Expert testimony will be pivotal. Mountaineering specialists, coroners and rescue coordinators will explain how hypothermia affects the body and mind, how altitude undermines motor skills and decision-making, and what safety protocols climbers typically follow. Simulations, timing estimates and technical reconstructions will be used to piece together events and test whether on-site choices matched accepted standards.
Judges will need to weigh competing scientific models about how quickly motor control and judgment deteriorate in the specific conditions found on Grossglockner. The question before the court is not simply whether errors were made, but whether any omission or action went beyond negligent conduct into criminal territory under Austrian law.
Austrian courts tend to evaluate three core factors: whether the harm could reasonably have been foreseen, whether the actions were proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances, and whether a legal duty of care existed and was breached. Separating criminal culpability from a tragically misjudged moment in a high-risk activity like mountaineering will be the trial’s central challenge.
The case has reverberated well beyond the courtroom. Within the climbing community, some insist on strict risk management and personal responsibility for companions; others warn that criminalising decisions made under physiological collapse could unfairly punish those who acted while themselves under duress. Media coverage has focused on the human cost — Gurtner’s death and the emotional fallout for her family, friends and fellow climbers.
Legal commentators point to a wider trend: courts increasingly rely on technical reconstructions and algorithmic models to resolve disputed sequences in hazardous settings. That trend raises fresh questions about how courts should assess the reliability of those models and how much weight to give simulations when assigning criminal fault. The trial will test where the line should be drawn between misfortune and criminal responsibility.
