The case has brought to the fore a legal doctrine known as Garantenstellung, a broad concept in Germanic law that establishes a responsibility to intervene for people who have a “duty of care” in a range of situations, including parents caring for children or a driver who hits a pedestrian — and can put liability on those people. It is often invoked on trips with hired guides, but has rarely been applied to a private hike like the couple’s excursion, experts said. Prosecutors argue that the man was liable for his girlfriend’s death because he planned the trip and was much more experienced than her....
December 21, 2025
"This is the open question. When people are doing something risky or dangerous together, how much is one person responsible for the other?"
Said a University of Innsbruck law professor, quoted in "A Woman Froze to Death on an Alpine Trek. Is Her Boyfriend to Blame? A man in Austria was charged in the death of his girlfriend after leaving her behind, in a case testing ideas of freedom and responsibility in the mountains" (NYT).
Posts
19 comments:
Let's play Reverse the Sexes and ponder if the question posed would be treated exactly as presented here. I think not.
This case only works if women admit they are not equal to men and that men and women are not the same.
And you can't hold this boyfriend to blame because he has been told by feminists for decades that women a better at men at everything.
He was just giving his girlfriend what she said she wanted.
The unusual case has roiled the mountaineering community and could have ramifications for Austria’s large alpine tourism industry.
So the article isn't just gossip then?
You need to outrun that bear, even if your companion is slower. You can apologize about the outcome, but what's done is done.
I bet Cher would have survived.
Maybe they were on a break.
Denver Gazette is on the story:
https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2025/12/05/austrian-faces-negligent-manslaughter-charge-after-allegedly-leaving-girlfriend-to-die-on-12461-foot-peak/
"According to local reporting from the Heute, several factors contributed to the trip being considered negligent, including the woman’s aforementioned lack of experience, the late start of their trek, the lack of adequate emergency equipment, the defendant allowing his girlfriend to use a splitboard and snowboard soft boots for the hike, the more experienced defendant not making the decision to turn back in time, not making an emergency call before nightfall, not sending a distress signal to a helicopter that flew by at about 10:50 p.m., not communicating enough with rescuers after the call for help was placed, and the defendant not assisting his girlfriend with her bivouac sack nor available emergency blankets when he made the decision to turn back alone."
I don't know about his legal responsibility, but from what I've read, he did behave terribly. He abandoned a much less experienced climber and made no attempt to call for help. There is something very strange and even suspicious about the whole story.
It's the scapegoating principle. So long as the blame goes somewhere, it's no longer an outstanding burden.
It has a rule of law problem in that you don't know in advance what behavior is required by law in a given situation. No advanced notice, just after the fact blame falling.
I wonder how long they were friends.
The man is being blamed for 9 failures, including allowing her to choose to wear her snowboarding boots.
I'm just here for the comments.
I used Grok to look into how stupid it is to hike in snowboarding boots. Apparently, it's not that stupid.
Curious George said...
I bet Cher would have survived.
Yes, formaldehyde has a very high freezing point.
If the law thinks that the man had any control over what boots she chose to wear, the law is a ass.
boatbuilder said...
If the law thinks that the man had any control over what boots she chose to wear, the law is a ass.
The law thinks whatever the emotions of the nearest woman say it thinks.
We learned this from the Supreme Court.
Here in Texas you can do dangerous shit cause we don't care if you kill yourself being dumb.. but if it endangers others you can either get arrested or just the shit kicked out of you.... simple, no?
I guess I was thinking they believe he planned this result, that he lured her to this place and at this time and then abandoned her to die.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.