Gwyneth Paltrow Deer Valley Collision and Trial

[François Pugh]

I believe I read that there were emails in which the plaintiff and/or his daughter stated that the event was all captured on his GoPro. Now, either mysteriously, or conveniently, they claim that either: (1) video never existed; or (2) it doesn't exist now. Either way looks very bad for them and I would expect the defense to harp on it in summation.

I would not get my expectations up too high from what I've seen of the defense team so far. The only thing they got going for them IMHO is that the prosecution sucks too.

 

[Paul Lutes]

Wait ...... who's the prosecution and who's the defendant in suits/counter-suits????

Not a fan of Gweneth (she ruined Emma), but hard to see how she doesn't walk away from the completely clean.

 

[François Pugh]

I wonder what was linked.

 

[crgildart]

Witnesses are seeing this pretty one sided. Is her instructor a reliable witness?

 

[Paul Lutes]

Every body's a reliable witness unless you can actually prove otherwise.
Fundamentally the optometrist has yet to show anything that actually proves his claims.

 

[scott43]

Nice angle...

Did Gwyneth Paltrow ski into a retired optometrist? I couldn’t care less, but the farce is unmissable | Marina Hyde

A starstruck lawyer, a neutrals-clad wellness guru – this has to be the lowest stakes court battle of all time, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

 

[fatbob]

As I mistkenly wrote in the wrong thread the whole thing is deeply deeply weird. The low stakes, the amateur hour lawyers on both sides, the lack of anything but bias and hearsay in evidence. I see why Paltrow hasn't just settled : a little bit of wall to wall coverage of her swanning around like she's better than everyone is probably good for her brand but no idea why the plaintiff has pursued it other than crazy old manness.

There's a serious point that those of us at risk from injury on public slopes care about but it isn't exactly heartening that there is no way of determining the actual facts beyond a confession by either party.

 

[scott43]

There apparently is one objective eyewitness..

 

[fatbob]

There apparently is one objective eyewitness..

Who?

Can't be the ski instructor who if we believe Sanderson's witness yelled at the unconscious Sanderson, and was included as a co respondent in the original suit.

 

[crgildart]

Yesterday they said the instructor did not see the actual collision. So no objective witnesses.

 

[scott43]

No some random dude. Made it sound like his version of events was more accurate..

 

[scott43]

Craig Ramon.. That's the dude's name..

 

[fatbob]

Yeah he was in Sanderson's group so not unbiased.

 

[scott43]

Yeah he was in Sanderson's group so not unbiased.

But the only eyewitness and under oath...

 

[fatbob]

Exactly why they've been trying to discredit him as a close buddy of Sanderson. Personally it doesn't sound like they were that close and I'd be pretty unwilling to perjure myself to shakedown anyone so if I apply that test then I think his testimony has more weight than her kids who were 11 at the time or whatever......

 

[BLiP]

“Eye witnesses” are often the most unreliable witnesses. Everyone sees and interprets things in a different way. Non-attorneys put way too much emphasis on eyewitnesses.

The idea that every witness is reliable unless proven otherwise is also foreign to anyone involved in the law. Witnesses should be judged in the same way that people are judge in every day life. Some witnesses are reliable, some are not. You take into account any biases, the witnesses’ basis of knowledge, what they are saying, etc. Trial law is not rocket science; it is largely the application of common sense.

 

[markojp]

But no one has asked, who was wearing the red and who was wearing the blue (or grey?) coat?

 

[crgildart]

“Eye witnesses” are often the most unreliable witnesses. Everyone sees and interprets things in a different way. Non-attorneys put way too much emphasis on eyewitnesses.

The idea that every witness is reliable unless proven otherwise is also foreign to anyone involved in the law. Witnesses should be judged in the same way that people are judge in every day life. Some witnesses are reliable, some are not. You take into account any biases, the witnesses’ basis of knowledge, what they are saying, etc. Trial law is not rocket science; it is largely the application of common sense.

This is way more true in chaotic and high stress situations like violent crimes. A couple people willy wallying along a beginner slope who happed to somehow collide doesn't seem like that kind of phenomenon is as likely.

What is true though is that slow moving crashes on rock hard refrozen beginner slopes hurt more than going down at 30 mph on something steeper. Was the guy wearing a helmet? The actual incident probably looked mostly benign. But hitting the ground like that at age 70+ and bones can definitely break.

 

[crgildart]

But no one has asked, who was wearing the red and who was wearing the blue coat?

It was red and grey

 

[clong83]

It's a he said/she said case. If I had to pick a side, I'd say he is more believable than she is. But I am not sure I'd be convinced enough to find in judgement against her if I were on the jury.

I guess the reason I kinda lean towards his side of the story is that she left the scene. I do kinda fault Paltrow for leaving. He did break four ribs and had a concussion, which nobody disputes. You don't leave an accident if that happens. If I'm involved in an accident and the other party appears injured in any way, even if I am in no way to blame, I am not leaving until ski patrol is there and I have told them what I think happened. Actually, especially if I am not to blame I would stick around. I'd want to avoid just such an outcome where the other party talks a big story about how I whacked them out of nowhere and then skied off. If I'm not there, then at least one part of that story checks out and appears credible.

Edit:

I'll go ahead and note that he is not exactly a sympathetic plaintiff, and there are plenty of valid reasons to question his motivations, in part due to some of his own actions afterwards. So yeah, I think if I am a juror I just want a week of my life back and to be allowed to go home.