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

[otto]

What did you think of her testimony? You think she was lying?

I do think she was lying. She grew up in the entertainment industry, specializing in role-play for her income. During questioning, she was continuously making strange facial expressions and blinking. It was as though she was trying too hard to appear credible. With calculating use of language, she described a crash on a ski hill as a sexual assault.

She insisted that her children never called out to her to say "look at me" while learning to skiing. She said that, in general, her children never asked her to watch them do something (since they were toddlers). She apparently disagrees with others regarding whether her son was farther up the hill. Her lawyer used questions to testify about what witnesses might say next week, including the point that Paltrow produced an animation with her version of the ski crash. She was very reluctant to admit that she has always sued the plaintiff for costs of the legal proceedings.

Interestingly, she alleged that colour blind people are unable to distinguish what they see at a distance of 40 feet.

She could not give a straight answer regarding whether she remained at the scene of the crash - which was a legal requirement. It is not her right to claim that because she delegates tasks in her work environment, she believed she could delegate tasks at a crash site and take off. Many people delegate tasks at work. That doesn't give them a pass when it comes to law.

 

[pentimento]

This may be off the wall but TS's demeanor in the courtroom and his staring at GP reported by those in the courtroom and just the way this went down makes me wonder if TS knew who she was. I wonder if among the "Meet up" group there was a discussion of her being on the slopes with children etc.? I assume she was seen elsewhere in the resort. He does seem to be the type to do something like this...just a wild idea.

I was just thinking about the odd way GP describes him hitting her, as if his skis came perfectly between hers, causing her legs to split. If it's true, it does sound like at the very least he made zero attempt to veer away after seeing her, hitting her straight-on in the back like that. How creepy. JMO.

ETA: I tend to believe her account. It does match how the "expert" described his injuries as having been caused by a blow to the back -- in this case him landing on his back straight after the collision, and she wasn't injured as she landed on top of him. It just makes sense to me. JMO.

 

[turaj]

It really didn’t help the plaintiff to put GP up right after Shae. The contrast was incredible. GP was poised and direct whereas Shae came off in so many unappealing ways.

I want to give some grace to the daughters and say they’re in a difficult spot. Their father did a number on them and they know they have to play the part to keep the facade of a great father/relationship going. That’s how they are coping with their difficult relationship with their father. But this just goes to show how much a lawsuit can bring out! If you have a family member who is controlling and difficult to deal with, they will test the ever loving s*** outta you until they die! This lawsuit is just further intrusion into their lives and they did nothing to bring that about!

i can't imagine that it is worth it to have your life put on display like this and much of it not very pleasant. I agree GP was quite a contrast to Shae.

 

[neesaki]

Although I agree, I think what disturbs me the most about the two daughter’s testimony is all the disparaging remarks about their younger sister who seemed to give a much different story about their father (In her deposition).

I agree. If I were the younger sister, I would probably choose to cut ties after this.
Maybe she’s already done that ?

 

[mickey2942]

Interesting. Personally, I don't believe either one of them.

 

[Cool Cats]

I was just thinking about the odd way GP describes him hitting her, as if his skis came perfectly between hers, causing her legs to split. If it's true, it does sound like at the very least he made zero attempt to veer away after seeing her, hitting her straight-on in the back like that. How creepy. JMO.

ETA: I tend to believe her account. It does match how the "expert" described his injuries as having been caused by a blow to the back -- in this case him landing on his back straight after the collision, and she wasn't injured as she landed on top of him. It just makes sense to me. JMO.

I think he knew who she was and deliberately assaulted her on the ski slope.

His leaving court is not normal then only coming back into court just to stare at GP is not normal, staring like that is not normal - it is aggressive domineering behavior - (see Bryan Kohberger) he is allegedly "obsessed with GP and this lawsuit," he thinks he is famous now because he "hit" a movie star on the ski slopes, and he is not totally in his right mind with some type of documented brain injury/illness I think dating back to 2006?

He is a creepy guy, a bad father who verbally abused his kids with his bad temper. A bully to the youngest daughter.

My impression of him.

If he wins I hope he gets his one dollar.

 

[pentimento]

I think he knew who she was and deliberately assaulted her on the ski slope.

I think so too the more I think about it. I think GP knows this but is trying to demonstrate what happened logically rather than cry assault. I'm pretty sure it's a matter of principle for her that she's not going to give this guy a dime for doing what he did. I'm sure the weight of her on top of him when they fell contributed to his injuries but it's his own damn fault for pulling such a stunt Maybe he thought they'd fall and have a laugh and he'd have a reason to talk to her -- somebody famous -- but it totally backfired on him. JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think so too the more I think about it. I think GP knows this but is trying to demonstrate what happened logically rather than cry assault. I'm pretty sure it's a matter of principle for her that she's not going to give this guy a dime for doing what he did. I'm sure the weight of her on top of him when they fell contributed to his injuries but it's his own damn fault for pulling such a stunt Maybe he thought they'd fall and have a laugh and he'd have a reason to talk to her -- somebody famous -- but it totally backfired on him. JMO.

I think her cussing him out made him realize his stunt backfired. I do not believe he was unconscious, I think someone said he tried to talk to her by asking "whose fault was it?"

I think he tried to land an encounter with a movie star and yes, it totally backfired on him.

With his bad temper it makes sense he got angry and offended and obsessed over it and then decided to milk it for everything, "fame" "money" "attention."

I will reserve my final opinion of him until after he testifies. Will be interesting. This is just my opinion so far. Still need to hear his point of view on the stand. I expect him to tank but we will see.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

It is not her right to claim that because she delegates tasks in her work environment, she believed she could delegate tasks at a crash site and take off.

She didn't delegate it and it doesn't make her more likely at fault in the accident.

She insisted that her children never called out to her to say "look at me" while learning to skiing.

Plantiff's attorney was implying, actually insisting, that if the children were in her view while she was skiing, GP would have been oblivious of other skiers.
As a parent that skied with children for many years, this is ridiculous.
While it's possible that a child had said "look at me" sometime during the lesson, the problem is the attorney seemed to be claiming that the son said this at the time of the accident. We don't have the testimony saying that the son was calling out to GP and that she turned to look at him at that exact time and that it caused the accident.

 

[Weki]

I suppose it’s possible for her to put on a persona and testify as though she was reading a script and lie really well! But I feel like her indignation and anger in the moment is a pretty good indication that she truly felt violated. Would she feel that way if she ran into him? Perhaps. It’s possible that she’s such a huge narcissist that she was at fault and got mad at him! It’s possible but not probable imo. But his testimony will be conclusive. Defense has 7-8 witnesses *eyeroll*

 

[Laughing]

Plantiff's attorney was implying, actually insisting, that if the children were in her view while she was skiing, GP would have been oblivious of other skiers.

rsbm

imho -- she paid for each child to have an instructor, as spelled out in detail by that Atty, partly in order to enjoy skiing with reduced parenting that day.

We took our child to an adaptive ski event (Shrine Hospital family.)

I ski some, younger sister is Ski Patrol.

We watched but did not interact directly with the child -- that would have interrupted the instructor.

imho GP knew her children well enough to be comfortable placing them with instructors for the session with a plan to meet for lunch.

Maybe a 'show-off what we can do now' session was planned for after lunch or the next day?

My family's event concluded with an 'exhibition.' My first-time skier successfully took a mogul!

 

[Weki]

Even if her kid said “look at me” and she was looking in his direction, it doesn’t mean she is completely unaware peripherally. Also she would know if someone was ahead of her and how close they were to her before turning to look at her son. So if the plaintiff was ahead of her and she turned to look at her son, we have to assume that she just has no spatial awareness and is just an idiot to have just crashed into someone who would’ve been just a few feet away. And we would have to assume she had her head turned and just kept skiing.The only way she could’ve crashed is if he somehow came in front of her while she turned to look.

That’s why plaintiff wanted to argue to the jury that she’s clumsy and bumps into things all the time. The judge shut that down!

 

[turaj]

Even if her kid said “look at me” and she was looking in his direction, it doesn’t mean she is completely unaware peripherally. Also she would know if someone was ahead of her and how close they were to her before turning to look at her son. So if the plaintiff was ahead of her and she turned to look at her son, we have to assume that she just has no spatial awareness and is just an idiot to have just crashed into someone who would’ve been just a few feet away. And we would have to assume she had her head turned and just kept skiing.The only way she could’ve crashed is if he somehow came in front of her while she turned to look.

That’s why plaintiff wanted to argue to the jury that she’s clumsy and bumps into things all the time. The judge shut that down!

and this line of questioning is interesting bearing in mind they represent a client with vision loss in one guy and close to 70 with history of brain and other issues. Who is more compromised a 40+ year old mother skiing with her children and ski instructors (each one had one)????

 

[otto]

She didn't delegate it and it doesn't make her more likely at fault in the accident.

Plantiff's attorney was implying, actually insisting, that if the children were in her view while she was skiing, GP would have been oblivious of other skiers.
As a parent that skied with children for many years, this is ridiculous.
While it's possible that a child had said "look at me" sometime during the lesson, the problem is the attorney seemed to be claiming that the son said this at the time of the accident. We don't have the testimony saying that the son was calling out to GP and that she turned to look at him at that exact time and that it caused the accident.

Paltrow stated during testimony that she asked a ski hill employee (private ski lessons instructor) to provide her personal details to the plaintiff. She explained that, in her work, she delegates tasks, so she assumed that she could delegate that task. Law requires that she provide the information regardless of what she does at work.

By law, when there is a ski hill crash, those involved in the crash must exchange personal information. Paltrow did not do that. She could not confirm that her personal information was provided because she left the crash scene before the information was exchanged.

One of the lawyers testified (in a question) that one of the private ski instructors would confirm that her son called out to Paltrow at the time of the crash. I suppose we'll hear more this week.

 

[ch_13]

It’s possible that she’s such a huge narcissist that she was at fault and got mad at him! It’s possible but not probable imo.

I haven't been watching this trial, so I have no opinion as to who ran into whom or what the appropriate compensation should be.

However, I disagree with your statement above. People tend to remember facts in a way that benefits them. Maybe it's narcissism, but it's also common behavior. Witness any car accident with two drivers at the side of the road yelling at each other over who hit whom and which car had the green light.

I do find it interesting that whenever a professional actor is on the stand (not just in this case, but in many others as well), there's a lot of commentary about how genuine they seemed and how they effective their testimony was. They are often contrasted to civilian witnesses who in comparison seem squirrelly and unappealing. I sure hope that I never end up in a civil case against an entertainer. My lack of charisma would get me torn to pieces by trial watchers.

 

[otto]

I suppose it’s possible for her to put on a persona and testify as though she was reading a script and lie really well! But I feel like her indignation and anger in the moment is a pretty good indication that she truly felt violated. Would she feel that way if she ran into him? Perhaps. It’s possible that she’s such a huge narcissist that she was at fault and got mad at him! It’s possible but not probable imo. But his testimony will be conclusive. Defense has 7-8 witnesses *eyeroll*

Paltrow's demeanour changed between defence questions and plaintiff questions. Rapid, continuous blinking and strange facial expressions (pursed lips) with plaintiff's lawyer, and what appeared to be perfectly rehearsed answers during defence lawyer questioning.

Paltrow's loud swearing after the crash does not mean that she is not at fault. It means that she has a big temper when not controlling her image.

 

[pentimento]

One of the lawyers testified (in a question) that one of the private ski instructors would confirm that her son called out to Paltrow at the time of the crash. I suppose we'll hear more this week.

Maybe her son yelled out at the time because he saw somebody aiming for his mother from behind. It will be interesting to hear the rest of the testimony. JMO.

 

[otto]

Maybe her son yelled out at the time because he saw somebody aiming for his mother from behind. It will be interesting to hear the rest of the testimony. JMO.

If someone crash-landed on Paltrow when she was skiing, I think she would have some injuries - perhaps broken ribs. The way Paltrow explains it, the plaintiff skied into her and hit her in the back. She did not testify that she fell on her face - which is what should happens when someone is hit from behind. According to Paltrow, she was hit from behind, she landed on him and rolled off him. She swore at him, told her son's instructor to provide her personal information and skied down the hill to join her children.

She claims to be an intermediate skier, yet she testified that her skis were so far apart that his skies fit between her skis. Beginner skiers do the snow plough, allowing a second person to fit skis between. Intermediate skiers keep their skis together.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Paltrow stated during testimony that she asked a ski hill employee (private ski lessons instructor) to provide her personal details to the plaintiff. She explained that, in her work, she delegates tasks, so she assumed that she could delegate that task. Law requires that she provide the information regardless of what she does at work.

By law, when there is a ski hill crash, those involved in the crash must exchange personal information. Paltrow did not do that. She could not confirm that her personal information was provided because she left the crash scene before the information was exchanged.

One of the lawyers testified (in a question) that one of the private ski instructors would confirm that her son called out to Paltrow at the time of the crash. I suppose we'll hear more this week.

I disagree, in her testimony, she did not ask or direct the employee to do the information exchange, he told her he would do it and told her to go on and join her children. This is not a hit-and-run. MOO

 

[turaj]

and this line of questioning is interesting bearing in mind they represent a client with vision loss in one guy and close to 70 with history of brain and other issues. Who is more compromised a 40+ year old mother skiing with her children and ski instructors (each one had one)????

should be vision loss in one eye...and bet more comes out this week.