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
45 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.
If they had been, say, in a rocky eight-year marriage, we would make some pretty strong, and damning, inferences.
Reminds me of that recent video of a tourist couple in Columbia. The woman and the locals step up.
Watch Man Hide Behind Wall While Female Companion Fights Armed Robber Alone
"he planned the trip and was much more experienced than HER..."
For heaven's sake, NYT. He was much more experienced than SHE (was).
Watch the full video for the comparison to the avalanche scene in the movie "Force Majeur," where the husband abandons his wife and kids.
If he left her with a hipflask, a syringe, and a .45 would that have made it alright?
There's been some chatter lately about the philosophical "shallow pond problem" and the more widely known "trolley problem," but in this case, you may not need an ethicist to tell you what's right and what's wrong.
Amadeus 48 said...
"he planned the trip and was much more experienced than HER..."
For heaven's sake, NYT. He was much more experienced than SHE (was).
12/21/25, 9:56 AM
*******************
That was harsh to my [mental, grammar-correcting] ears as well.
Maybe NYT is subscribing to this (new?) theory of language?
https://completecolorado.com/2025/12/19/msu-denver-standard-american-english-white-supremacy/
Of course he's responsible for her death. It's Man's primal responsibility.
Achilles, if you listen to feminist drivelling claptrap and respond accordingly, you are not a man. There are absolute rules that modern society cannot change. If you change then you are at fault not the harpy
If she had a tattoo of "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," we'd all know what to do.
Rules of grammar? Didn't they go out with ebonics? Them rules b racist.
That's been somewhat contentious in the serious mountaineering community (from what I've been reading and seeing, I don't do that sort of thing), primarily on places like Everest where the norm seems to be that no one is obligated to help anyone else because it's too damn dangerous (a href="https://allthatsinteresting.com/francys-arsentiev">e.g.). I believe one who made it down after several people had passed by him (Beck Weathers) has argued that climbers are, in fact, obligated to assist.
Everest is a little weird because it attracts a lot of people who shouldn't really be there.
An AA friend of mine, used to be my sponsor back in Jersey, has a wife (they lived together for decades and just recently got officially married) in the beginning stages of dementia/Alzheimer's, he doesn't know which one yet.
In our most recent conversation he told me she went alone to a nearby store and on the way back tripped and bruised one side of face very badly, a bystander rendered aid and called an ambulance. He was very shaken, and I thought 'why the heck didn't you go with her?' But, I bit my tongue. He was sharing a scare and my interjection would not have contributed to that. I'm supposed to be helpful.
Could caretakers face a world of hurt if this kind of prosecution takes off.
Reminds me of these idiots (2016). If you'r going to visit the n. side of grand canyon in winter you might want to confirm whether it is open (its not). Their kid could have easily frozen to death. East coast press tried to made them look cool. Reaction in AZ was a little different. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvania-family-grand-canyon-rescue/
It doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that people engaging in an activity together have some responsibility for each other. Not to the point of risking his own safety, but each person in a group should be expected to do what they can to keep the group safe.
Not a legal principle in the US, but still a principle: “if you go out alone, you’re a hero. If you take someone with you, you’re dogshit.”
This issue was thoroughly covered in the Seinfeld finale.
Seems like a tough case, though. The girlfriend's weakening was sudden and unexpected, but the only excuse for leaving her alone is if it would have put him (and therefore both of them) at grave risk. It seems that she was so weak as to be immobile, but if he could have called for a helicopter rescue at that point but didn't, I would say he's guilty.
The common law axiom is that danger invites rescue. Not sure what is the Austrian equivalent of that.
What is the fun of going up a mountain in the snow if there is no chance that you could die, really. Otherwise go to Disney Land.
Harsh, I know, but we are the descendants of cave men!
"That was harsh to my [mental, grammar-correcting] ears as well."
My grammar checker says it's fine.
From reading about survival events, it is about even. Half the time the guy who goes for help wins and half the time the shelterer wins. The authorities say stay put. Only time I got lost was when I got caught in a snowstorm on a cross country ski trail and it got dark. I followed a straight line and walked out and found a road no phone light or compass, fell in a few ditches. It does not take much snow to cover up all the trails.
Even experienced hikers screw up and die from time to time. A cousin of ours was an experienced hiker in the northeast, but decided to hike Mount Rainier one December by himself, and didn't return. There was a woman in her 30s, also experienced, who went hiking near Phoenix earlier this year and didn't return. That caught our attention because we had been hiking on those same trails a few weeks earlier. So experience doesn't mean always making the right decisions. There should be a pretty high bar for criminal liability.
His behavior would have to be most egregious to be accused of this.
I wonder why he didn’t leave the bivi and survival blankets with her. Putting his phone on silent mode was pretty damning. After his initial call, Plamberger allegedly put his phone on silent, missing numerous incoming calls and messages from alpine police who were trying to coordinate a rescue. Her boots might be a clue she expected a normal hike and dressed for that. The guy was not just more experienced, he was formally trained alpine climber. The woman trusted his judgment and lost her life. He seems like a douche.
If she had gone hiking with a bear, she would have been fine. Feminists told me that.
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.