'Reckless' Gwyneth Paltrow caused Utah ski crash,lawyer says

[Sarzy]

Gwyneth Paltrow was "distracted" when she crashed into a retired eye doctor on a ski slope, inflicting brain damage and breaking his ribs, a court heard.

A lawyer for Terry Sanderson told the jury in Utah that the Hollywood actress' "reckless" actions had caused the collision on a slope in 2016.

Ms Paltrow has counter-sued. Her lawyer said the crash was Mr Sanderson's fault and his claims are "utter BS".

Mr Sanderson, 76, is seeking damages of $300,000 (£245,000).

He dropped a previous claim for $3.1m.

The 50-year-old Oscar winner's counterclaim seeks $1 in damages, plus legal fees.

The actress-turned-lifestyle-influencer sat impassively in court during opening statements on the first day of the trial in a Park City court on Tuesday.

The incident occurred in February 2016 on the beginners' slope at the Deer Valley resort where Ms Paltrow was skiing with family.

She and her children are expected to testify.


"Distracted skiers cause crashes," said Mr Sanderson's attorney, Lawrence Buhler.

"She knew that skiing that way, blindly skiing down a mountain while looking up and to the side was reckless, she knew that continuing to ski that way... she would crash into somebody below her."

Mr Buhler said Ms Paltrow crashed into his client and then quickly skied away, leaving him prone and unconscious without calling for help or checking to make sure he was OK.

"Before this crash Terry was a charming outgoing gregarious person," Mr Sanderson's lawyer said.

"He was living a full life, travelling the world, doing everything possible to enjoy his life and guard his health. But after the crash he's no longer charming."

Steve Owens, Ms Paltrow's lawyer, dismissed Mr Sanderson's claims as "utter BS".

He told the jury his client had just begun descending the slope when a pair of skis suddenly appeared between her legs and a man collided into her back.



Terry Sanderson accuses Ms Paltrow of being a distracted skier

Ms Paltrow's lawyer argued that Mr Sanderson, who suffers from vision and hearing loss as a result of a previous stroke, may not have seen the actress before he collided with her.

Mr Owens said his client initially suspected she was being assaulted and was so shaken by the incident she chose not to ski for the rest of the day.

"She may have sworn at him. It rattled her and it physically hurt her," he said.

The case appears to hinge on which skier - Ms Paltrow or Mr Sanderson - was uphill at the time of the accident. According to Deer Valley safety policies, skiers "ahead or downhill of you have the right-of-way. You must avoid them."
Craig Ramon, who is a friend of Mr Sanderson, was the first witness to take the stand in the case


At times Ms Paltrow attempted to hide from the cameras in court


He testified that he heard a scream and turned his head to see Ms Paltrow crash into Mr Sanderson.

But on cross-examination, Ms Paltrow's lawyers noted that Mr Ramon is colour-blind, arguing he could not have distinguished which skier caused the crash from his or her clothing alone.

Ms Paltrow's attorneys allege that GoPro footage and a social media post that corroborate her version of events have "disappeared".

The original claim, filed in 2019, said: "This case involves a hit-and-run ski crash at Deer Valley, Utah, where defendant Gwyneth Paltrow skied out of control and hit the back of Terry Sanderson, another skier, who was downhill, knocking him down hard, knocking him out, and causing a brain injury, four broken ribs and other serious injuries."

The proceedings are scheduled to last for eight days.


www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65027945

[tulip]

That's really sad he was hurt, but when a skier is covered head to toe in gear, how can you tell who hit you when it happens so fast? Goopy is a lot of things, but I don't see her skiing away from someone she collided with.

[cornflakegrl]

I have a hard time believing she left him "prone and unconscious without calling for help or checking to make sure he was OK." That would be pretty cruel. I'd think there would be plenty of witnesses at that point.

Also the comment that she was looking around and to the side instead of in straight ahead ... I mean who noticed that? Who would have seen, in seconds, that she was say looking to the left when she hit the man? It's not passing the smell test for me.

[Sarzy]

 @ Tulip- She doesn't deny there was a collision, but says he went into her.

[lindsaywhit]

I can totally see her skiing away. This is the same woman who stole a script from her then best friend Winona Ryder and went on to get the part and the Oscar. This is the same woman who "canoodled" with Harvey Weinstein which caused the break up with Brad Pitt, who then threatened Weinstein but still left Gwyneth. There are so many more stories that show us exactly who she really is.

She's not just obnoxious. She's sly and entitled and driven by self-interest. I can totally see her skiing away.

eta: Also the same woman who whinged to her mother that people said she was an entitled bitch; Mommy told her they were just jealous. The same snake oil saleswoman who promotes and sells outrageously expensive "treatments" that are not only useless but may actually be harmful.

[o0amber0o]

Yea I wasn't surprised to hear the accusation that she would just ski away either honestly - it sounds like she didn't fall or anything so to me I would imagine she thought she just bumped into someone and kept going without actually looking back? Of course I say that as a total non-skier with no knowledge. I do have a hard time figuring out how something like this can even be proven in court. Wouldn't it all just be a he said she said game? If it boils down to who had the right of way, how would that be proven outside of what comes out of someone's mouth? I can't really imagine there being good surveillance cameras on ski slopes? I know testimony is valid evidence but in a civil case like this it seems like having only that is just a waste of everyone's time.

Furthermore, don't skiiers wear helmets and goggles? How could anyone possibly know where someone is looking with a helmet and goggles on?

Seems like 6 years of BS if you ask me.

[Sarzy]

^ The witness claims she fell on top of him. 

"Paltrow got up, turned and skied away, leaving Sanderson stunned, lying in the snow," it added.

However, the actress's legal team has told jurors that Mr Sanderson, 76, was the one who crashed into her - a collision in which she sustained what they called a "full body blow".

On the opening day, the first witness to appear was Craig Ramon, a fellow skier and "acquaintance" of Mr Sanderson who said he was the only other person present at the time of the collision. He had been about 11m (35ft) away.

Mr Ramon said: "We were skiing down the run and then I heard this yell, this scream, and then I looked over and... then I see this skier [Paltrow] just slam into the back of Terry.

"She slammed him very hard. She hits him directly in the back, his skis go out and he falls face down, so he's kind of spread-eagled and Gwyneth is on top of him... and bounces off and slides about five or 10ft."

news.sky.com/story/gwyneth-paltrow-ski-crash-court-case-us-star-slammed-into-fellow-skier-very-hard-before-bolting-12839281

[trixie]

Well, here you have a 70 year old man with alleged vision and hearing loss from a previous stroke, out on the slopes. He's now claiming brain injuries, which are very hard to prove, particularly a closed head injury, where complaints are mainly subjective. The fractured ribs of course can be easily proven. First he sues for $3m, now #300k. That's quite a drop in expectations. Plus, if she was skiing behind him, how would he know if she was looking up or to the side, and being inattentive.

She claims HE struck HER from behind, his skiis went between her legs, and she initially thought she was being assaulted. Understandable I guess, since she is THE Gwyneth Paltrow, lol. If she, her lawyers and her insurance company thought he had a case, they would have settled out of court. I'm sure they will argue this guy is just reaching for the celebrity deep pockets, and they might be right.

[no1novice]

I think she is guilty.
But I hate her for her snake oil cures that are damaging to women's health and her cunt smelling candles.

[shellee]

Yeah, I see her leaving the scene. We know she’s reckless from the photos of her on her scooter with Apple or the other one cutting in front of a bus on a majorly busy highway. She thinks because she’s friends with beyawnse and j that she can use the N word. She’s a fucking cunt.

[eatsleepbeer]

Mar 22, 2023 19:23:23 GMT no1novice said:

I think she is guilty.
But I hate her for her snake oil cures that are damaging to women's health and her cunt smelling candles.

Just quoting this for the beauty of the sentence "cunt smelling candles.". 🤣😂🤣😂

[Sarzy]

Gwyneth Paltrow initially feared that she was being sexually assaulted when she was hit from behind on a ski slope, saying she felt legs between her legs as she and Terry Sanderson toppled to the ground. Paltrow, 50, said she screamed 'You skied directly into my f***ing back' at the retiree who has accused her of leaving him brain damaged in a ski crash. The actress, who was one of the first to accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, said she was momentarily frightened that Terry Sanderson could be an attacker. She said she thought: 'Is this someone doing something perverted?' She added: 'I was trying to put together what was happening behind me.' She swiftly realized, she said, that it was not a sexual attack, but rather someone had crashed into her from behind. In dramatic testimony on the fourth day of her trial, Paltrow admitted to shouting at Sanderson, 76, as he lay on the ground in the aftermath of the crash.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11899323/Gwyneth-Paltrow-ski-crash-trial-Day-4-Actress-prepares-stand.html#article-11899323

Hmm I don't believe her.

[no1novice]

But she landed on him and broke his ribs....

[czb]

Sarzy - i agree. the sexual assault claim is odd.

[trixie]

I just don't understand why they let this go to trial, especially if she hates the public spectacle so much. $3m, well of course not, but $300k, I'm sure they could have come to some agreement. Could she just not admit to ANY negligence? Usually, decisions to settle or go to trial are made by the insurance carrier, since they are paying the bills. The whole thing is just weird, because this is really a he said/she said, and her celebrity could either hurt or help her.