Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was up hill, as she claims, it’s pretty much game over.

Rules of the mountain. He’s uphill, his responsibility to avoid collision. So seems like he has to overcome that evidentiary burden at least.

Surprising they planned so many days in court. It does seem relatively simple.

Does the guy say why he waited so long to sue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shakedown. He wanted 3 million. And she was on the bunny slopes with her kids with 2 instructors.

The instructors back up her version of the story, which is that she had the right of way and he ran into her. He has a witness supporting his version.

She pays the instructors to ski with her kids so they can skip the lines. If I was on the jury I would have doubts about their veracity

There are no lines in a place like this. We're not skiing at Liberty, sweetheart!

Really? Every time I've been to Deer Valley there have been lines. Granted not long ones, but it's not like it's deserted. You basically have to ski high up or black runs or both to avoid all lines.

There are lines (not on every lift) but not something that would put you out enough to have instructors tag along. That's just a nice bonus but instruction is great at any level.
I think based on the jury being from park city and likely skiers, they will dismiss this or award him less money.

He was originally asking for 3 million but the judge did something to make it 300k.

Judge ruled $3M was excessive.
Anyone know what the claim is for the $300k? Pain & suffering? Lost wages? I assume his injuries were mostly covered by insurance. Maybe out of pocket expenses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shakedown. He wanted 3 million. And she was on the bunny slopes with her kids with 2 instructors.

The instructors back up her version of the story, which is that she had the right of way and he ran into her. He has a witness supporting his version.

She pays the instructors to ski with her kids so they can skip the lines. If I was on the jury I would have doubts about their veracity

But you have no doubts about the old man who had a head injury but recalls with precise detail what happened? Who also is likely star struck and sees dollar signs in his eyes with this case? No credibility issues there?

Who also emailed his daughter immediately and said he would be famous because of this incident. He just wants his name in the news.

I don't see how that's some smoking gun? Her crisis pr is grasping at straws leaking that to every tabloid. And he was right, he was/is briefly famous because Hollywood royalty injured him. If Trump or Biden ran into you on the slopes or on a bike ride, you could send a similar email to family. Your name is about to be everywhere.

I can see Biden crashing into someone on his bike, but Trump would have to hit someone with his golf cart because that’s how he exercises.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Paltrow was wise to have every family member ski with an instructor. They’re valuable witnesses if there’s a collision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shakedown. He wanted 3 million. And she was on the bunny slopes with her kids with 2 instructors.

The instructors back up her version of the story, which is that she had the right of way and he ran into her. He has a witness supporting his version.

She pays the instructors to ski with her kids so they can skip the lines. If I was on the jury I would have doubts about their veracity

Literally everyone we know pays ski instructors to take their kids so they can go and actually enjoy skiing. And so their kids learn to be strong skiers. We don't, because we're broke. But it's an odd thing to get hung up about.

We call them “guides” and hire them for the first full day our family skis at a place we haven’t skied before. Really helpful for big mountain ranges, connecting resorts, speaking the local language (one side of the mountain speaks German and the other side Italian) and lunch spot recommendations/reservations help, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shakedown. He wanted 3 million. And she was on the bunny slopes with her kids with 2 instructors.

The instructors back up her version of the story, which is that she had the right of way and he ran into her. He has a witness supporting his version.

She pays the instructors to ski with her kids so they can skip the lines. If I was on the jury I would have doubts about their veracity

I wouldn't. Ski instructors have no reason to lie, it's not like they are permanent household employees. We always have ski instructors for our kids for a variety of reasons, and I seriously doubt any of them would ever lie for us in spite of being paid by us. That's just what they do and how they make money.

Oh, please. Ski instructors rely on rich clientele. Especially if you can build a book of rich Hollywood elites, you're set for life.

[Anonymous]

The guy suing her sounds like a loon. If he was downhill how could he see her skiing erratically and dangerously? And then there's this:

Speaking during a January 2019 press conference alongside his attorneys after filing the complaint, Mr Sanderson elaborated that seconds before the crash he had “heard this just hysterical screaming like… King Kong in the jungle or something”.


Sounds like he's been embellishing his story over the years.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/terry-sanderson-ski-accident-gwyneth-paltrow-trial-b2305703.html

[Anonymous]

Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Victimhood and tabloid nonsense, no matter how manufactured, is good for the brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Nothing here has been particularly flattering of GP.

Is there a dispute over who was up/downhill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Some people care about principles. Paying off these people just encourages them. She has deep enough pockets to be able to care about justice. Not awarding some elderly half blind fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Some people care about principles. Paying off these people just encourages them. She has deep enough pockets to be able to care about justice. Not awarding some elderly half blind fool.

Yes, Hollywood is totally opposed to payoffs because of principles. lol. This is being choreographed and blasted to tabloids because the old bag is soaking up the attention and wants to play a victim. $300k is chump change to this filthy rich woman. She's exploiting this to generate attention, win or lose it's a cheap way to get her name everywhere and play a victim while being 20 or 25 years past her career prime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Some people care about principles. Paying off these people just encourages them. She has deep enough pockets to be able to care about justice. Not awarding some elderly half blind fool.

Yes, Hollywood is totally opposed to payoffs because of principles. lol. This is being choreographed and blasted to tabloids because the old bag is soaking up the attention and wants to play a victim. $300k is chump change to this filthy rich woman. She's exploiting this to generate attention, win or lose it's a cheap way to get her name everywhere and play a victim while being 20 or 25 years past her career prime.

my god. over react much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Some people care about principles. Paying off these people just encourages them. She has deep enough pockets to be able to care about justice. Not awarding some elderly half blind fool.

Yes, Hollywood is totally opposed to payoffs because of principles. lol. This is being choreographed and blasted to tabloids because the old bag is soaking up the attention and wants to play a victim. $300k is chump change to this filthy rich woman. She's exploiting this to generate attention, win or lose it's a cheap way to get her name everywhere and play a victim while being 20 or 25 years past her career prime.

my god. over react much?

I don't think so. She's presumably worth $100 million, lawyers are presumably $1k an hour and crisis pr doesn't get out of bed for less than six figures. And what's a private jet cost to and from whatever podunk town this this trial is at? She's probably into this for more than $300k, so she might as well have just cut the check -- unless of course it's a calculated decision by an aging grifter to lap up the attention and social media engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good to see her PR found this thread. My gosh, would have been much cheaper to just pay this guy to buzz off. All the lawyers and PR makes me think the washed up actress is enjoying the attention.

Some people care about principles. Paying off these people just encourages them. She has deep enough pockets to be able to care about justice. Not awarding some elderly half blind fool.

Yes, Hollywood is totally opposed to payoffs because of principles. lol. This is being choreographed and blasted to tabloids because the old bag is soaking up the attention and wants to play a victim. $300k is chump change to this filthy rich woman. She's exploiting this to generate attention, win or lose it's a cheap way to get her name everywhere and play a victim while being 20 or 25 years past her career prime.

my god. over react much?

I don't think so. She's presumably worth $100 million, lawyers are presumably $1k an hour and crisis pr doesn't get out of bed for less than six figures. And what's a private jet cost to and from whatever podunk town this this trial is at? She's probably into this for more than $300k, so she might as well have just cut the check -- unless of course it's a calculated decision by an aging grifter to lap up the attention and social media engagement.

That’s what he said. And the definition of a shakedown.