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

[otto]

I'm following but missed some (many?) things. Please help.
I think I heard that the plaintiff was unconscious for 45 min after the collision.
But, I heard conflicting evidence - like his detailed recollection of the ski patrol lady who helped him.

If he was unconscious for 45 min, wouldn't they have transported him to the hospital?
A ski instructor and later a patrol person was there to examine everybody.
Was he, or wasn't he, unconscious?

I haven't watched all the testimony. All I've heard is that he reported to treatment providers that he was unconscious for an unknown period of time after the collision. A witness to lose of consciousness will make all the difference. Ski patrol can testify to his condition when they transported him down the mountain.

 

[otto]

I'm convinced that she crashed into him based on the fact that she has no injuries and he has broken ribs. She had a soft landing, he didn't. Neither disputes that they crashed. It seems that he did not see it coming, so he did not adjust posture or move out of the way to protect his ribs. It sounds like she saw it coming and managed to avoid injury.

That leaves me wondering why she is saying that she is the victim? Does she think that she can convince the courts that she is being exploited because she is famous? Does she want to pay nothing in compensation, not even $300k? That's pennies given her income. If he landed on her, why was she uninjured? Her diet? I don't think so.

 

[otto]

He has reported that she screamed prior to the collision. If he was unexpectedly approaching her from behind, why did she scream? She was looking at her children and down the ski hill, not up the ski hill. He wasn't looking for people who might hit him either, but he didn't scream prior to the collision. She didn't scream after the collision because she wasn't injured.

If she crashed into someone on the ski hill, why is she denying it? It speaks to character if she had an accident and is acting like she is a financially exploited victim of the general public.

 

[jbc]

For such a simple thing, in principle, this is confusing.
I thought there was evidence that they ran into each other side-by-side, and got their skis tangled up while moving slowly before the pair falls down together and the plaintiff hits his head on the snow with GP on top.

There was a notation in the accident report by a ski instructor that was read by the defense attorney reflecting this.

The first witness who so emphatically stated on direct that GP barreled into the plaintiff completely collapsed on cross and recanted his statement. I think that's when I heard the side-by-side, ski-entanglement, slo-mo version of the collision.

That plus all of the uncertainty about his unconsciousness, leaves me really scratching my own head.

 

[otto]

For such a simple thing, in principle, this is confusing.
I thought there was evidence that they ran into each other side-by-side, and got their skis tangled up while moving slowly before the pair falls down together and the plaintiff hits his head on the snow with GP on top.

There was a notation in the accident report by a ski instructor that was read by the defense attorney reflecting this.

The first witness who so emphatically stated on direct that GP barrelled into the plaintiff completely collapsed on cross and recanted his statement. I think that's when I heard the side-by-side, ski-entanglement, slo-mo version of the collision.

That plus all of the uncertainty about his unconsciousness, leaves me really scratching my own head.

So far, during trial, my understanding is that she rolled off him ... to the right ... before skiing away. Hopefully testimony will clarify what happened. A witness who saw what happened, and who is a friend of the plaintiff, testified that she crashed into him. Is he the witness who recanted?

Slo-mo or otherwise, who saw it coming? One of them crashed into the other. One of them saw it coming. One person screamed before, not after, the crash. Who saw it coming?

Unconscious doesn't matter as much as broken ribs, in my opinion. Broken bones means a hard collision. That could have included a bump on the head with post-concussion syndrome, but one step at a time. Two people collided, one saw it coming and was uninjured, the other has broken ribs.

She landed on top.

" ... got their skis tangled up while moving slowly before the pair falls down together and the plaintiff hits his head on the snow with GP on top"​

 

[Tower]

Sounds like the trial is derailed by focus on the plaintiff's childrens' opinions.

I think that the reason he is injured, and Paltrow is not, is because she landed on him. If he crash landed onto her, she would have injuries and she would be suing.

As for his TBI, that is so difficult to demonstrate. His age works against him. Was his extensive travel after the ski collision? Was he ziplining before or after the accident? If after, TBI is more difficult to believe.

As for his opinion that he was unconscious, I'm fairly certain that people who are momentarily unconscious are not aware of being unconscious. Being stunned or disoriented does not mean unconscious.

I agree with many of your points, except for injuries. She is taller and much younger. If he crashed into her and went tumbling, he could have broken ribs by landing on his own arm awkwardly. Or landing on her backpack or elbow.

I believe he is exaggerating his head injury. The ziplining and vacations were post-collision. Anyway, I’m just keeping an open mind because I don’t believe injuries can prove who was uphill. I think his injuries actually point to him being at high speed and out of control, possibly hampered by poor vision. But I don’t think they prove anything either way.

Imo

 

[Tower]

Even if his ribs were broken by her elbow when he landed on her, she would have an injured elbow and arm. Her wrist would be injured from taking the weight of him landing on her elbow.

He was a cushion for her crash landing. She got up, skied away, and had no injuries. He had broken ribs. Car accidents cause broken ribs. One person heading down the ski hill and crash landing on someone holding a ski pole could cause broken ribs. Ski injuries can be serious, especially for the victim of a crash landing.

People have injuries exactly like his by crashing into absolutely nothing but snow. It is quite easy to smash your own equipment into your ribs by a hard fall. My husband did it on a trail while hiking, and he was 45 years younger than this man. Moo

 

[jbc]

No matter how it happened, if she just skied away as he laid on the ground - that's uncool.
If she skied away leaving him alone, how did they track her down?
He couldn't have told anyone because he was unconscious, right?
When did they get her statement?

But again, I thought I saw during the trial that the DV Instructor arrived and stayed at the scene enough to make a detailed report. If he is unconscious and she is gone - how does the report get written? The report differs from the witness guy uphill that "saw" GP "barrel" into the plaintiff, as I understand it. I may be wrong, though.

 

[otto]

I agree with many of your points, except for injuries. She is taller and much younger. If he crashed into her and went tumbling, he could have broken ribs by landing on his own arm awkwardly. Or landing on her backpack or elbow.

I believe he is exaggerating his head injury. The ziplining and vacations were post-collision. Anyway, I’m just keeping an open mind because I don’t believe injuries can prove who was uphill. I think his injuries actually point to him being at high speed and out of control, possibly hampered by poor vision. But I don’t think they prove anything either way.

Imo

Paltrow is born in 1972. She will be 51 years old this year. How tall is the plaintiff? I haven't read anything about "tumbling," only a collision where ski patrol carried one person down the hill, the other skied away with no post-collision screaming or injuries.

Zip-lining with post-concussion syndrome? I don't believe that someone with genuine post-concussion syndrome would take that risk. He has disadvantages in the lawsuit due to previous stroke and age of 69 at the time of the crash. However, if he is zip-lining after the ski crash, it seems like he is recovered from his concussion.

 

[Cool Cats]

The Biggest Bombshells from Gwyneth Paltrow's Utah Ski Trial

Here are the biggest takeaways from the trial revolving around Gwyneth Paltrow and Terry Sanderson over a 2016 ski accident

www.yahoo.com

 

[Tower]

No matter how it happened, if she just skied away as he laid on the ground - that's uncool.
If she skied away leaving him alone, how did they track her down?
He couldn't have told anyone because he was unconscious, right?
When did they get her statement?

But again, I thought I saw during the trial that the DV Instructor arrived and stayed at the scene enough to make a detailed report. If he is unconscious and she is gone - how does the report get written? The report differs from the witness guy uphill that "saw" GP "barrel" into the plaintiff, as I understand it. I may be wrong, though.

Agree. I basically don’t believe anyone’s version of events at this point. I think believing what this man is claiming when he also claims he was unconscious and had a TBI is illogical. The witnesses are all over the place as well. This trial is chaos. Jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Agree. I basically don’t believe anyone’s version of events at this point. I think believing what this man is claiming when he also claims he was unconscious and had a TBI is illogical. The witnesses are all over the place as well. This trial is chaos. Jmo

Like an accident you can't look away from....

Ouch

 

[Tower]

Paltrow is born in 1972. She will be 51 years old this year. How tall is the plaintiff? I haven't read anything about "tumbling," only a collision where ski patrol carried one person down the hill, the other skied away with no post-collision screaming or injuries.

Zip-lining with post-concussion syndrome? I don't believe that someone with genuine post-concussion syndrome would take that risk. He has disadvantages in the lawsuit due to previous stroke and age of 69 at the time of the crash. However, if he is zip-lining after the ski crash, it seems like he is recovered from his concussion.

I don’t believe we have any truthful witness or conclusive evidence of how this collision occurred. That’s my point. There are people telling versions to suit their own agendas, but many of the “facts” are being presented by a man who also states he was unconscious. How does he know she callously skied away? Maybe once he was cared for, she merely skied slowly down the bunny slope and quit for the day, which is what she states she did. I find none of these people believable, so I cannot pick and choose which of the allegations are truth, exaggeration or falsehood.

I’m not going to look it up, but she was approximately 44, he was approximately 70. Jmo

 

[otto]

The Biggest Bombshells from Gwyneth Paltrow's Utah Ski Trial

Here are the biggest takeaways from the trial revolving around Gwyneth Paltrow and Terry Sanderson over a 2016 ski accident

www.yahoo.com

But ... how can the treatment provider say that he has post-concussion syndrome if he is zip lining? I have no medical expertise, but my understanding is that the syndrome can include balance, hearing and vision disturbance. Swinging across the jungle on the end of a heavy duty clothes pin doesn't equate with post-concussion syndrome - in my humble, uneducated opinion. Common sense.

"Dr. Alina Fong (a neuropsychologist who treated Sanderson for the first time in May 2017) later claimed in a video deposition that her client had been "struggling with concussion symptoms for a year and a half" since the incident occurred."{/INDENT]

same link​

 

[otto]

I don’t believe we have any truthful witness or conclusive evidence of how this collision occurred. That’s my point. There are people telling versions to suit their own agendas, but many of the “facts” are being presented by a man who also states he was unconscious. How does he know she callously skied away? Maybe once he was cared for, she merely skied slowly down the bunny slope and quit for the day, which is what she states she did. I find none of these people believable, so I cannot pick and choose which of the allegations are truth, exaggeration or falsehood.

I’m not going to look it up, but she was approximately 44, he was approximately 70. Jmo

It seems like she crashed into him and he had broken ribs. It also sounds like he does not have post-concussion syndrome. He's telling half the truth, and so is she.

Good point. She turns 51 this year and the collision was in 2016. She was roughly 44 years old when she collided with a 69 year old on the ski hill.

 

[Weki]

It was pointed out that neither party would argue this was a hit and run. So she didn’t just collide with him and run off. But I think she was po’d and said what the eff? and when his buddy tried to talk to her she walked away. She did not treat him as though she was in the wrong. In fact it was the opposite. So I agree we do not have any evidence of how this collision happened. They will both testify so it will come down to credibility! Whose version is more believable?

I do agree that broken ribs is quite serious. But did he hit his head? I don’t know. Not sure if there’s evidence of a bruise on his head or anything like that. But even if we say he had a concussion. How does this prove her negligence? Absent any evidence she was negligent, him being injured /concussed by itself is not proof of anything other than he had a hard fall? I was reminded that this is not beyond a reasonable doubt - it’s a preponderance of the evidence so the scale has to tip only slightly in his favor and he wins! I think both their testimonies will decide the case. The neurologist who testified at the end of the day yest said he had to have been hit from behind! I dunno.

 

[turaj]

i would not believe when

I'm following but missed some (many?) things. Please help.
I think I heard that the plaintiff was unconscious for 45 min after the collision.
But, I heard conflicting evidence - like his detailed recollection of the ski patrol lady who helped him.

If he was unconscious for 45 min, wouldn't they have transported him to the hospital?
A ski instructor and later a patrol person was there to examine everybody at the scene.
Was he, or wasn't he, unconscious?

Maybe I am confused but that 45 min. unconscious event was well after the ski accident. I am not clear if or for how long he was unconscious after the event in question. The fact that there was another event makes evaluating him for example today pretty impossible. Not sure he even went in after second event. Did I imagine that second event??

 

[Weki]

The 45 mins unconsciousness was a separate event post ski collision. That’s my understanding. Again, better lawyering would make this case easier to follow. It’s a muddled mess.

 

[turaj]

It seems like she crashed into him and he had broken ribs. It also sounds like he does not have post-concussion syndrome. He's telling half the truth, and so is she.

Good point. She turns 51 this year and the collision was in 2016. She was roughly 44 years old when she collided with a 69 year old on the ski hill.

this whole case should have been settled.....I don't think absent a video of the "crash" we will ever really know. It sounds from the daughter's testimony it seems like the big issue here is he wanted an apology. What really went down that made her comfortable just skiing away. I find that a bit hard to believe other than everyone on the ground...everyone gets up...someone asks him if he is okay and she skis off.

For such a simple thing, in principle, this is confusing.
I thought there was evidence that they ran into each other side-by-side, and got their skis tangled up while moving slowly before the pair falls down together and the plaintiff hits his head on the snow with GP on top.

There was a notation in the accident report by a ski instructor that was read by the defense attorney reflecting this.

The first witness who so emphatically stated on direct that GP barreled into the plaintiff completely collapsed on cross and recanted his statement. I think that's when I heard the side-by-side, ski-entanglement, slo-mo version of the collision.

That plus all of the uncertainty about his unconsciousness, leaves me really scratching my own head.

yep the one witness Craig a member of the "meet up " group told one story when first deposed at a time much closer to the event and yet we are to believe his memory is much better today( how many years later) than then? Sorry not buying it. With all this confusion I think they pretty much have to divert to the original report from that day.

 

[turaj]

The 45 mins unconsciousness was a separate event post ski collision. That’s my understanding. Again, better lawyering would make this case easier to follow. It’s a muddled mess.

Weki I know you watch many trials (more than I do) and think you would agree some of the worse lawyering from both sides( personalities and abilities) I have ever seen in a courtroom. It is cringeworthy. The ending yesterday with the daughter was a real circus. GP is lucky to have escaped when she did yesterday.