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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."

This refers to misidentifying criminals in the stressful situation of the commission of a crime. This situation is fairly straightforward in that two different people are claiming the encounter happened differently. When you apply the simple test of asking which person will benefit from their version being the one believed, it's obvious the Plaintiff has been panting with anticipation of this lawsuit, not for any sense of a wrong being righted, but for the notoriety and $$$$ he's been after since this happened.
MOO.
I do not trust eye witness testimony <modsnip> Too many convictions
are based on this unreliable testimony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He didn't see the accident and he is commenting on animation productions about something that happened 7 years ago. Isn't there research about eye witness testimony resulting in many wrongful convictions? I'm sure that the witness believes what he is saying, whether it's reliable is another question.

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."​

Court tv commented on
Eric saying: Ramon took 45 seconds to get over to the crash.
Eric said he had taken both G & T skis off and helped them both stand up - before-Ramon arrived.
You can’t do all that in 45 seconds!

JMO
 
The plaintiff is the one bringing this suit and has the burden to prove the plaintiffs version of events. If people can be sued and held liable for millions or even hundreds of thousands in damages based on this kind of evidence we’re all in big trouble. Get ready to hand over your retirement funds and children’s college tuitions!
 
I AM PLAYING CATCHUP

Watching Ramon testimony. JMOO he's a big liar pants on fire.

way too many ums, er, um, I means. Terry was face down in the snow, knocked out and Ramon asks are you okay? but upon getting no response he then watches Christiansen screaming at and berating TS so his response is to place himself between TS and EC but not to go to TS's side, doesn't assist, just faces off w EC but doesn't render aide? Did I miss the part where he went had rendered aide to his unconscious broken bodied friend? I must have missed that part. Right?

Then Ramon claims EC told him that GP took out TS not the other way around. How many times can one dude say "she just bolts" ?

This guy is completely incredible.
 
Witness: This is getting a little silly don’t you think? Lol

This is after 3-4 questions about whether he raised his voice after he answered repeatedly he hadn’t.
LOL I thought he was going to ask if he didn't go home and yell at his wife.

Dang, he just won't give up, he is not gonna get a "gotcha" on this witness.
 
I AM PLAYING CATCHUP

Watching Ramon testimony. JMOO he's a big liar pants on fire.

way too many ums, er, um, I means. Terry was face down in the snow, knocked out and Ramon asks are you okay? but upon getting no response he then watches Christiansen screaming at and berating TS so his response is to place himself between TS and EC but not to go to TS's side, doesn't assist, just faces off w EC but doesn't render aide? Did I miss the part where he went had rendered aide to his unconscious broken bodied friend? I must have missed that part. Right?

Then Ramon claims EC told him that GP took out TS not the other way around. How many times can one dude say "she just bolts" ?

This guy is completely incredible.
I think Ramon and TS have become good buddies. If TS wins this case, I think Ramon will likely be treated to some steaks and drinks.
moo
 
"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."

This refers to misidentifying criminals in the stressful situation of the commission of a crime. This situation is fairly straightforward in that two different people are claiming the encounter happened differently. When you apply the simple test of asking which person will benefit from their version being the one believed, it's obvious the Plaintiff has been panting with anticipation of this lawsuit, not for any sense of a wrong being righted, but for the notoriety and $$$$ he's been after since this happened.
MOO.
I’ve seen similar statistics regarding eye witness testimony with some saying up to 70%. But it seems me these stats tend to give us the impression that eye witness testimony is wrong more than it is right and I’ve heard many lawyers point that out. i’m certainly not a lawyer but I would point out that if there are 100,000 convictions in a year due to eye witness testimony and 5% of those are wrongful convictions - that’s 5,000 out of 100,000 and if 100% of those 5,000 wrongful convictions were due to eyewitness testimony that still means 95% of convictions due to eyewitness testimony are not wrongful convictions. So I still put a lot of stock in eye witness testimony. However, sometimes people just lie and sometimes they are mistaken and I’m still trying to figure out which of these I think CR has done because I do not believe that he saw what he has described.
 
After four-and-a-half days of Sanderson’s attorneys calling witnesses, Paltrow’s defense team has equal time to present their case. They brought one of her family’s four ski instructors to the stand Monday afternoon. Her two teenage children, Moses and Apple, are expected to testify later this week.
 
I think Ramon and TS have become good buddies. If TS wins this case, I think Ramon will likely be treated to some steaks and drinks.
moo
I also think they cooked up the lawsuit together while continuing down the slope for a few moments after the accident, then stopped and decided to call the EMT. The EMT describes disorientation because he cannot recall exactly how the accident occurred, but his buddy clearly remembers -- even though he did not see it -- that GP took him out from behind and fled the scene. JMO.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one wondering how come neither side was able to locate the woman who was slowly skiing behind them? It would seem to me that she would have had the best vantage point to see the collision in front of her. I would think a good private investigator could have identified her.
 
A couple of questions keep coming to my mind….

1) Does negligence or wrecklessness have to be shown to win an injury lawsuit in Utah?

2) If homeowners insurance covers things like ski collisions, why isn’t it GP’s insurance company defending against this claim instead of her?
 
A couple of questions keep coming to my mind….

1) Does negligence or wrecklessness have to be shown to win an injury lawsuit in Utah?

2) If homeowners insurance covers things like ski collisions, why isn’t it GP’s insurance company defending against this claim instead of her?

I thought this was really interesting ….
Dan Garner, founder of The Garner Law Firmin Salt Lake City, said he's "shocked" Paltrow's case made it to trial, and he expects an insurance company is forcing her to fight it in court.
"Likely Gwyneth has insurance and then the insurance hired an attorney," Garner said. "But I would be surprised if Gwyneth had her own attorney that was putting pressure on the insurance attorney to settle the case."
 
I thought this was really interesting ….
Dan Garner, founder of The Garner Law Firmin Salt Lake City, said he's "shocked" Paltrow's case made it to trial, and he expects an insurance company is forcing her to fight it in court.
"Likely Gwyneth has insurance and then the insurance hired an attorney," Garner said. "But I would be surprised if Gwyneth had her own attorney that was putting pressure on the insurance attorney to settle the case."
You quoted the article perfectly, but I can’t understand what that last quote means. If she had her own attorney putting pressure on insurance to settle, are they saying her attorney failed? Since the suit made it to trial? Or did they mean “I would not be surprised…”??
 
You quoted the article perfectly, but I can’t understand what that last quote means. If she had her own attorney putting pressure on insurance to settle, are they saying her attorney failed? Since the suit made it to trial? Or did they mean “I would not be surprised…”??
I know it’s confusing. As is this trial!

I got the impression the article is saying: she probably hired a private lawyer to get her insurance company to settle. But the Insurance has forced her to go to trial (with Insurance lawyers).
Maybe that’s why she looked so deer-in-the-headlights first day. Didn’t wanna be there.

If you read further down in the article it talks about other possible problems…
Paltrow's lawyer, Steve Owens, has argued in court that Sanderson's health issues predate the collision.
Garner, however, said Paltrow's lawyers may struggle to win on this issue due to the "eggshell doctrine," which means a defendant can be responsible for exacerbating a plaintiff's previous injury.

MOO
 
I know it’s confusing. As is this trial!

I got the impression the article is saying: she probably hired a private lawyer to get her insurance company to settle. But the Insurance has forced her to go to trial (with Insurance lawyers).
Maybe that’s why she looked so deer-in-the-headlights first day. Didn’t wanna be there.

If you read further down in the article it talks about other possible problems…
Paltrow's lawyer, Steve Owens, has argued in court that Sanderson's health issues predate the collision.
Garner, however, said Paltrow's lawyers may struggle to win on this issue due to the "eggshell doctrine," which means a defendant can be responsible for exacerbating a plaintiff's previous injury.

MOO
That is why documentation in the medical record is so important to prove
Or disprove thru objective testing and physician diagnosis whether he has
True injury resulting from the collision and if there is in fact exacerbation
Of prior medical issues
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
445
Total visitors
547

Forum statistics

Threads
625,631
Messages
18,507,302
Members
240,827
Latest member
shaymac4413
Back
Top