Such are the subjective observations of Ashley Fetters Maloy, writing in WaPo, in "At trial, Gwyneth Paltrow is dressing for where she’d rather be/The Goop founder’s clothes have telegraphed two messages at once: She was just a regular mom on a ski vacation, and she is too famous to waste her time on this."
The question in the case is who skied into whom — that is, who was uphill. The plaintiff sued Paltrow for $3 million, but it got reduced to $300,000. Why didn't she just settle? She counterclaimed for $1 plus attorney's fees. I think it's because she's telling the truth.
I watched this clip of her testimony on TikTok, and I predict she'll win — as one commenter says, "I'm with bone broth lady":
@staytunednbc #GwynethPaltrow answers questions from a lawyer representing Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old optometrist suing the actress over a 2016 skiing accident in #Utah ♬ original sound - staytunednbc
Posts
44 comments:
I've only became aware of this situation in the last couple of days, but my understanding is that the plaintiff is claiming she slammed into him and thus caused him serious injury. Well, physics would seem to suggest that is unlikely. Yeah, the guy is old, but he was healthy enough to be out skiing, so not frail, and she is a woman, a very thin, waif like woman. Even if she did slam into him, its more likely that she would be the one hitting the ground and getting injured. So I believe her too.
Huh...aloof glamour queen motives despite Paltrow being an obvious deep-pockets lawsuit target...whatever...?
Commentary about this case sometimes fails to grasp the absolute chaos that occurs on mixed-skill ski hills. They combine near-beginners in a panic with experts and every skill in between. Some are on skis while others are on snowboards, and each has a different potential to turn and stop. Some people lose control and others are reckless, but there are plenty of innocent mutual screw-ups and collisions too. Mixed-skill hills can be extremely crowded too, particularly if they offer fast and easy access from the ski lodge.
Those with a lot of Goop in their pockets likely face more lawsuits because ski hotel and lift ticket prices are quite high.
The plaintiff didn't reduce the demand from 3 mil to 300k. The judge did that for him. As written the implication is that plaintiff is asking for less because his case is weak.
From the details of the event, the "victim" had so many physical and health issues, he had no business being on the slope at all. Paltrow should win and he should count himself lucky she only wants a dollar. He's a treasure hunter who deserves to have the screws put to him.
Apparently, she didn't do it and the guy is just after a big pay-off, but everybody hates her, wants to see her lose, and would be happy if they could just send her to jail. The message she's sending with her clothes may be, "I'm rich and famous, but I want you to think I'm just a mom who wanted to take her kids for a ski vacation, even though we both know you won't." What strikes me most is 1) how much publicity Gwynneth's getting all of a sudden, and 2) how much she looks like her mom.
Although I'm not really following this case, it seems like it's the kind of claim that never would have gotten to trial but for the fact that it presented the plaintiff's lawyer a chance to get his (her?) 15 minutes of fame. I'm actually sort of surprised there's even a cause of action here; doesn't everyone on a ski hill more or less assume the risk of this kind of accident?
[happened in 2016 >>> where was Trump during this event?]
I think it's because she's telling the truth.
As sure as the sun rose this morning in the east, in a dispute between a male and female Althouse accepts the woman’s side. Whether it’s Christine Blasey Ford or Tirien Steinbach, the woman is always right. All hail women!
This time Althouse might even be right.
"The plaintiff didn't reduce the demand from 3 mil to 300k. The judge did that for him. As written the implication is that plaintiff is asking for less because his case is weak."
Thanks. I'll check and adjust the post if necessary.
I don't know Utah law, but the law in Nebraska is that you pray for your special damages and not your general damages. So, if this guy has $300k in medical bills and lost wages then his prayer is for $300k. His lawyer, however, can ask the jury for $3m.
If the plaintiff's lawyer asked for $3m and the law of Utah is the same as Nebraska's, she did it on purpose to generate publicity. If I was the judge, I'd sanction her. Fundamental stuff.
I dunno…. On one side is an accomplished actress, on the other a quite possible money grabber…
I’d be focused on the physics of the accident - all injuries, ski and weather conditions, time of day, their nominal skills etc.
Bad cross examination on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer. She asked Paltrow an open question about how being color blind is relevant, Paltrow had a good response prepared. She should have anticipated that.
There's also a clip of her interrogating Paltrow about only asking $1 in symbolic damages and for some reason tried to incriminate her by saying that she was aware that Taylor Swift had done the same thing in a deposition. Paltrow decimated in the exchange below.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2023/03/26/mark-twain-prize-american-humor-adam-sandler-cprog-orig-kj.cnn
"Take the rag away from your face
Now ain’t the time for your tears"
No tag for lawsuits you hope fail?
I, just a simple Midwestern rube, could never see the wisdom in strapping my feet to a couple of slick boards and shooting down a snow-covered hill. I was on crutches too many times from sports injuries to put my self unnecessarily at risk. Plus, I hate and suffer in cold weather. YMMV.
Oof. That was some poor cross-examination.
Can anyone quickly summarize the guy's injuries claimed?
I just lost 8 IQ points.
I had my first ski lesson at Deer Valley in eighties. Shared bunny slope with Oprah. Hard to imagine a serious collision on a green between 2 experienced, middle-aged skiers in helmuts. (No one wore helmets back then.)
Must be interesting picking a jury when the winter economy revolves around ski tourism.
My guess would be that the skiers hit where trails merge or cross, both arguably being the "uphill" skier - I have witnessed this kind of collision, where both skiers were at full speed and neither saw the other and they hit at full speed. This would explain the severity of his injuries much better than being run into from behind, where their relative speeds would not be so different. Would also potentially explain why no one with them actually saw the collision, as they would have been looking uphill to safely merge. If this is right, I have no idea who (if either) should be liable.
While not technically a superhero, she does inhabit the Marvel superhero universe. They all have much denser bones and faster reflexes than the average earth dweller and, no matter whose fault it was, she had the obligation to be more prescient and observant on the ski slopes than this poor mortal.
Just take a steam, Paltrow.
I thought she made smart choices in her attire. She isn't looking like she thought this was a red carpet event, she isn't overly made up or overly accessorized, etc., but she also doesn't look like she tried to dress down in an effort to make the jury find her more like them...which since this is in Park City, UT, the jury might be made up of more people closer to being like her than one might find elsewhere.
She's big into wellness, the whole Goop thing, etc., and there is no obvious evidence of costmetic surgery. One wonders if it will stay that way as she ages. Will she go the Madonna route? I think of Madonna partly because both of them became or were, at one point anway, full-time Londoners.
"No tag for lawsuits you hope fail?"
It's a civil case with both parties making claims, so I thought that would be confusing. Also, I'm not hearing all the evidence. The question is who ran into whom, and the person who should win is the one who got run into. Sit through all the evidence and decide. I won't root for or against anyone on the question of fact. How could I?
No idea who's right or wrong here, can't tell anything from that one little clip, but 40' is not far away. It's about the length of 2 pickup trucks.
In fact, a witness 40' away would probably have a better idea what transpired than one who was 10' away.
And colorblind? She didn't explain how that mattered. Colorblind doesn't mean the witness can't see well or discern how events played out that day. She's obviously been coached to repeat those points to discredit the witness, but it's really reaching.
"Bad cross examination on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer. She asked Paltrow an open question about how being color blind is relevant, Paltrow had a good response prepared. She should have anticipated that."
She needs to watch Irving Younger and take some notes for sure. https://youtu.be/dBP2if0l-a8
It doesn’t appear there is any direct evidence as to who was uphill and who was downhill. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terry Sanderson are both saying they didn’t see the other before the collision. The witness Craig Ramone says he looked when he heard a woman scream, a second or two before the collision. While Craig says Gwyneth ran into Terry, that by itself doesn’t prove Terry was downhill as Terry might have come the slope from above her and turned in front of her.
It may come down to whether the jury believes Gwyneth screamed before the collision. Terry Sanderson also says he heard the scream just before the crash, while I think Gwyneth is saying she didn’t scream until after contact was made. It should be noted that the first rule in the skier responsibility code is, “Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.”
If Gwyneth saw that she was going to collide, and had enough time to scream that it drew someone else’s attention, that’s evidence that she had the last clear chance to avoid the collision.
Interesting! Paltrow is an award winning actress and smart, if wacky. Her commitment on the stand appeared to be to repeat, "I'm telling the truth."
A mistake to keep cross-examining her so she could repeat it.
His injuries were 4 broken ribs and concussion. There was alleged brain injury, and he has since developed lack of control with one leg.
@ Jake. Thanks for the link to Irving Younger. He lectured at Hastings, where I went to law school. But passed away a year before I went there.
Working from memory, the complaint got to $3m with punitive damages, which court ruled unavailable for negligence.
I don't like it that Paltrow put in the jury's head that there was something sexual about it. That his skis slowly parted hers, and he slid in slowing behind her, grunting and pressing his whole body against hers.
She says now that was a fleeting first thought. But she brought it up for a really big reason-- to signal to the jury that Sanderson is a gross pervert.
I think she'll win, because there isn't really good evidence that she hit him. His friend says she did, but he was a little weird on the stand. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he had the same story from the very first days of the accident. The Deer Valley ski instructors say he hit her, but they didn't see it. I can easily see they would protect their high-profile client rather than rando on the slopes.
It sounds like there was a separate lawsuit against the resort, which settled.
The guy was like, "What's that smell?" and then BAM!
A 110 lb object slamming into you at 20 mph or 10 mph can be lethal. I suspect she hit him not the other way around. He looks to be in the low 200s which would have been memorable to her and her slight form.
A 110 lb object slamming into you at 20 mph or 10 mph can be lethal. I suspect she hit him not the other way around. He looks to be in the low 200s which would have been memorable to her and her slight form.
Sounds like there were suits against resort and family ski instructor, and not clear if resolved. P objections to lawsuit references sustained. Instructor testifying, and although did not see moment of impact, contradicts p a lot and appears to have been in position to see who was uphill. P. Lawyers will need strong cross.
Once again, I am amazed at how clunky most real lawyers are at cross-examination. Thanks to Jake's citation to Irving Younger's 10 Commandments of Cross-examination class, I realize this is not only because most of us (including non-trial lawyers) are comparing cross to TV scripted actors.
He likely put on some "This Smells Like My Vagina" after-shave and she was drawn to him.
Watched start of instructor cross. Ineffective, so stopped watching after a while.
Through the CBSNews article below, I found that the crash occurred on a ski run named Bandana. It's on the top right-center and comes off Mt. Flagstaff:
https://www.deervalley.com/explore-the-mountain/interactive-grooming-map
The map and court simulation show no intersecting courses or blindspots -- just a wide open and flat beginner green run (scroll down):
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gwyneth-paltrow-trial-ski-collision-deer-valley-park-city-utah/
Someone or both were perhaps not paying attention and they collided. This hill is so wide open and flat that anyone below would be hard to miss seeing. He was then 69 and had suffered a stroke, so the odds suggest he may not have seen her but that's my speculation. She may have been looking off to the side and away from the danger too.
Stroke: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sanderson-v-paltrow-trial-day-3-plaintiff-s-daughter-says-goer-dad-changed-after-crash/ar-AA18Zrxi
"Four broken ribs and a concussion"
And she didn't have any injuries? She is tougher than she looks.
Despite growing up in VT, I never really caught the ski bug. I tried to learn to snowboard as an adult and had a bit of a panic attack. I have a horrid fear of heights, so it was a challenge getting to the bottom without losing it. I'll stick to the ice - although being taken out from behind by a nine-year old SCUD missile dressed in pink and completely out of control is no fun. I had the imprint of her toe pick in the small of my back for weeks.
Unfortunately Paltrow was uphill and able to avoid an accident. She has no case other than it was unavoidable due to immediate circumstances.
Post a Comment