UT - Gwyneth Paltrow sued over ski collision at Deer Valley Resort in 2016 - trial, March 2023 *GP Not Guilty*

[otto]

Found this…

Sanderson filed a lawsuit against Paltrow seeking more than $3.1 million in damages. A judge dismissed the eye doctor’s original claim and removed the Utah Resort and Paltrow's instructor from the suit. However, the judge did allow the suit to go forward as a $300K claim instead of the original $3.1 million

Gwyneth Paltrow Sued for 2016 Skiing Accident: Everything to Know

It almost seems like both plaintiff and defendant are locked into a 7 year old story.

If the plaintiff had dropped the lawsuit after hit and run was rejected, was Paltrow dropping all counter suits for costs, or was she pursuing legal costs on behalf of her insurer? That is, was he locked in for her legal costs even if he dropped the lawsuit?

What is the truth? Did the ski crash feel like a sexual assault? Has he improved since the crash? She sexualized the crash and he exaggerated the permanent injury?

Is describing the ski crash as a sexual assault a form of deflection? Deflection isn't needed when telling the truth. Is he feeling better, having enjoyed 10 international adventures in the past 7 years?

After initiating the lawsuit, was there any time afterward where he could have ended it without being liable for Paltrow's legal fees?

 

[BUF]

@otto looking for legal briefs and found this. If I find any more I’ll post them.

https://www.salt-lake-catastrophic-injury-attorney.com/wp-content/uploads/Sanderson-v.-Paltrow-Answer-and-Counterclaim.pdf

 

[otto]

@otto looking for legal briefs and found this. If I find any more I’ll post them.

https://www.salt-lake-catastrophic-injury-attorney.com/wp-content/uploads/Sanderson-v.-Paltrow-Answer-and-Counterclaim.pdf

Thank you! Is there an earlier filing where she requests costs and relief? If February 2019 is the first counter suit, then he had four years to change his mind.

Filed in February 2019, on page 16, she formally requests all costs for the legal proceedings and further relief as deemed by the court. The mention of $1 dollar is a stunt, not what she is truthfully requesting.

same link

 

[Weki]

If insurance is paying for this litigation, I’m almost positive the insurance is the one asking for reimbursement from the plaintiff if the jury finds against him. The insurance company has also likely chosen the attorneys. That’s why they suck!

But even if she was paying outta pocket, I would ask for attorneys fees! Why not? It’s a frivolous claim!

 

[otto]

If insurance is paying for this litigation, I’m almost positive the insurance is the one asking for reimbursement from the plaintiff if the jury finds against him. The insurance company has also likely chosen the attorneys. That’s why they suck!

If 2019 is the first that she counter sued, then he had ample time to withdraw the lawsuit since 2015 ... no harm, no foul.

I would have expected her to counter sue immediately after receiving his lawsuit. I'm curious about filings in 2015/16. If she immediately counter sued, and at no time offered to withdraw the counter suit, then he was stuck with her fees regardless of whether he withdrew the complaint. That's perhaps one reason to go forward.

 

[turaj]

he would have never brought this suit had it not been a celebrity. I am sure his family tried to talk him out of it.

But I did note that Shae seemed really eager to see the go pro video as to cause so maybe her wheels were turning.

 

[Weki]

If 2019 is the first that she counter sued, then he had ample time to withdraw the lawsuit since 2015 ... no harm, no foul.

I would have expected her to counter sue immediately after receiving his lawsuit. I'm curious about filings in 2015/16. If she immediately counter sued, and at no time offered to withdraw the counter suit, then he was stuck with her fees regardless of whether he withdrew the complaint. That's perhaps one reason to go forward.

She/her insurance probably figured they would settle the matter. It’s almost always cheaper to settle nuisance lawsuits than to go to trial. And the insurance company will push for settlement since they’re the ones paying it’s their call. Sometimes both or either party wants to go through discovery to see what the evidence looks like before deciding how to proceed. But no matter where you are in the process, it’s cheaper to settle. Im guessing the plaintiff did not want to budge on the settlement sum.

I don’t believe the judge has capped the award amount to $300k. I believe it’s still at the 3 mil asking price. There is no cap in Utah for damages in a civil case from what I understand and at least one party brought up that he was asking for millions in the opening statement. I know the outlets are reporting it this way but it makes no sense to me. There is no way the insurance company is going to trial when they can be rid of this for $300k. JMO

 

[BeachSky]

Has GP’s husband come to any of the proceedings so far? I think both he & the 2 kids are to testify for defense.

JMO

 

[Marie Bell]

Has GP’s husband come to any of the proceedings so far? I think both he & the 2 kids are to testify for defense.

JMO

They're expected today, I believe.

 

[turaj]

I think that the plaintiff will have to work hard to remain calm and truthful during testimony. It sounds like he is more easily frustrated since the crash, which will work against him.

Additionally, his memory of the events that day has changed. For example, his testimony of being unconscious for 45 minutes hasn't been independently confirmed ... yet. Doesn't that detail come later? People who have been unconscious don't suddenly come to and claim - hey, I was unconscious, what'd I miss? I'm not a medical professional, but I don't think unconscious people know that they've been unconscious unless told.

i think there has been abundant testimony that he was not only "easily frustrated since the crash" but had that personality all of his life. I think that will come out even stronger in GP's case and verified by his demeanor on the stand. Owens could frustrate anyone but I think especially TS.

 

[turaj]

It almost seems like both plaintiff and defendant are locked into a 7 year old story.

If the plaintiff had dropped the lawsuit after hit and run was rejected, was Paltrow dropping all counter suits for costs, or was she pursuing legal costs on behalf of her insurer? That is, was he locked in for her legal costs even if he dropped the lawsuit?

What is the truth? Did the ski crash feel like a sexual assault? Has he improved since the crash? She sexualized the crash and he exaggerated the permanent injury?

Is describing the ski crash as a sexual assault a form of deflection? Deflection isn't needed when telling the truth. Is he feeling better, having enjoyed 10 international adventures in the past 7 years?

After initiating the lawsuit, was there any time afterward where he could have ended it without being liable for Paltrow's legal fees?

i think GP should have left off the sexual implications although she then backed down from them anyway. I would have left it to the jury's imagination. As she described it my mind went there without her saying anything....why? Because of who she is and what I see of TS...not beyond the realm of possibility. You are correct as it went it could be construed as deflection. That was the one part of her testimony that could have gone better in my opinion. The rag media has run with it in their headlines and no one in this case benefits from that.

 

[turaj]

CRAIG RAMON's testimony happened to come up in my you tube feed today...rewatched some of it and every aspect of his testimony was changed....he was an awful witness...I don't even think he knows TS that well and clearly could not really speak to the "before" and "after". He was on the stand to try to help a guy that I guess he felt sorry for. As a juror who can choose to give whatever weight to each witness' testimony I would give this guy a big ZERO.

 

[tlcya]

I was able to catch GP's testimony in replay this weekend but not sure I saw all of it. I thought she did a pretty good job as a witness. Personal dislike for her aside, she stuck to brief yes and no answers way better than the Plaintiff's recent witnesses. She knew enough to shut up when there was an objection and wait for the judge to rule, her demeanor is off putting to me but I got the sense she was telling the truth as she believes it.

 

[Weki]

CRAIG RAMON's testimony happened to come up in my you tube feed today...rewatched some of it and every aspect of his testimony was changed....he was an awful witness...I don't even think he knows TS that well and clearly could not really speak to the "before" and "after". He was on the stand to try to help a guy that I guess he felt sorry for. As a juror who can choose to give whatever weight to each witness' testimony I would give this guy a big ZERO.

Yeah my sense is that many people feel sorry for this guy and want to help him. I’m just no convinced yet that this guy doesn’t just want attention and this is how he pulls people towards him. We all know people like this - emotional vampires. They exaggerate problems and feed off the drama. It’s very effective at sucking people into their orbit.

I am on the edge of my seat for his testimony! I hope they get straight to the point and don’t start with the beginning of time! I anticipate there will be a lot of poor me, my life sucks now testimony!

 

[tlcya]

Agree with all three points -- Mr. Laughing, Retired watched most of Depp/Heard, every minute of the Murdaugh trial. & is watching this one! (Maybe I've created a monster, here?)

Wait & see, but GP is the most credible witness so far imho.

And regarding wider ski stance --- if GP has slowed to look for a path down the slope -- this is imho reasonable. Another skier moving faster could indeed ski right into her. Since both are moving -- they may slide on several yards before becoming tangled & falling in really any direction.

jmho ymmv lrr

yes, I am interested in seeing the animated reconstruction by the Defense, because what you describe is sort of what I was picturing when her version of events was being relayed and I think the animation will show very much what you've described above which is very credible and possible in my mind.

 

[NoseyRecluse]

I don't like, at all, her description of when they 'connected' for lack of a better word, and she said something to the effect of "and there's this guy, in between my legs, and I felt like I was being sexually assaulted". On a ski slope. With other people around. In winter. Really?

Also, I don't like, at all, the fact that her 'people' wanted to bring 'treats' in for the court staff, as a 'thank you' for inconveniencing them.

Just stick to the facts lady. None of this over the top stuff.

I don't have any opinion of the guy, yet. I just feel like GP isn't at all squeemish about usinsg her star status, and that bothers me.

 

[Teche]

Agree with all three points -- Mr. Laughing, Retired watched most of Depp/Heard, every minute of the Murdaugh trial. & is watching this one! (Maybe I've created a monster, here?)

Wait & see, but GP is the most credible witness so far imho.

And regarding wider ski stance --- if GP has slowed to look for a path down the slope -- this is imho reasonable. Another skier moving faster could indeed ski right into her. Since both are moving -- they may slide on several yards before becoming tangled & falling in really any direction.

jmho ymmv lrr

Mr. Laughing needs to join WS.

 

[Chelly]

 

[ilovewings]

I don't like, at all, her description of when they 'connected' for lack of a better word, and she said something to the effect of "and there's this guy, in between my legs, and I felt like I was being sexually assaulted". On a ski slope. With other people around. In winter. Really?

Also, I don't like, at all, the fact that her 'people' wanted to bring 'treats' in for the court staff, as a 'thank you' for inconveniencing them.

Just stick to the facts lady. None of this over the top stuff.

I don't have any opinion of the guy, yet. I just feel like GP isn't at all squeemish about usinsg her star status, and that bothers me.

Let's assume that neither party is particularly likeable, the question is will plaintiff prove his case, both on the facts of how the collision occurred and his damages. Don't know if they will ever figure out who was at fault, but as far as damages, so far, his exaggeration of his injuries is absurd. Maybe the jury will give him a small amount and send him on his way.

 

[Weki]

And we’ve started the day with lawyerly incompetence. *sigh*

How is it possible that a random viewer was able to access the meet up link when they’ve been at this for 7 years??? The judge is so annoyed with these lawyers. Also, why is the judge allowing more than one lawyer from each side to speak in argument? Kristen jumped up at one point while her colleague was up at the podium arguing the point.