A little late 'cause the verdict is in. But did anybody follow that? It had its absurd and comical moments.
Do you think the DA was fluffing Paltrow intentionally, or was the DA truly star-struck and enamored?
And the suit itself, I would have thought an accident like that was no-fault… you’d have to prove some sort of recklessness to have a chance to win.
And, there was dispute as to who ran into who. The only witness I saw supported the prosecution, but the jury ignored that. Or was there other testimony refuting that witness, or casting doubt upon the testimony?
It was the plaintiff’s lawyer, not the DA, but I’ve seen the clip, and I’d say yes, she was a bit star struck. She’s just some low level lawyer, and that’s Gwyneth effing Paltrow sitting there.
I haven’t read the suit (nor do I care to) but I’ve seen this repeated in the articles I’ve skimmed and assuming that this was drawn from the language of the lawsuit it is peculiar, as “negligence” generally indicates a breach of some legal duty resulting in injury or loss to the plaintiff. Setting aside the factual elements of who ran into who and what injuries were suffered, Paltrow had no legal duty to render aid or provide care, and it is generally understood that when engaging in a physically hazardous activity such as downhill skiing, the person is accepting a reasonable degree of possible harm from both natural causes and other participants with no particular duty of care beyond not intentionally plowing into other skiers or engaging in exceptionally reckless behavior (i.e. operating under the influence of intoxicants, creating obstructions, et cetera). It seems surprising that the case wasn’t just thrown out on that basis alone.
I didn’t follow very closely, but did I gather correctly that the plaintiff was trying to claim personaility changes and other assorted brain injuries, only to have witnesses testify “nah, he’s pretty much always been a jerk”?
A witness for the plaintiff testified that Paltrow ran into the plaintiff, but then also said the plaintiff was uphill from Paltrow when they collided. It is the duty of the uphill skier to avoid the downhill person, so his testimony ended up helping Paltrow.
The rules around personal liability during sports varies from state to state. Big skiing states have written into law the standards, I’m not sure of the ones for specific states.
General Rule – There Must Be Fault
The fact that another skier or snowboarder runs into or over you does not mean that he or she is liable to you for damages. In snow sports, as in almost any sports-related injury case, there must be some degree of fault before one person can be found legally responsible (liable) for damages to another person. Most states have a negligence standard to govern the conduct of skiers and snowboarders. Negligence is the failure to act with reasonable care. This means that, if a skier or snowboarder does not ski or snowboard in a reasonably safe manner and runs into you, he or she may be found negligent.
I’m trying to conceive of a scenario where the downhill skier could manage to impact an uphill skier with enough force to do serious injury and coming up short.
I’ve only skimmed the CNN articles. I gather that the plaintiff initially sued Paltrow for some outrageous sum (well over a million) then later revised that to about one-tenth of the original claim. Paltrow then countersued for $1 (literally, one dollar) plus legal fees.
That background, plus the fact that Paltrow won and the evidence seemed to be all in her favour, suggests to me that the plaintiff saw an opportunity to make a fast buck from a wealthy celebrity. Paltrow seems to have turned into a bit of a kook over the years but in this case she seems to have been in the right and was just trying to rid herself of a nuisance lawsuit.
Negligence issues are an inherent mixture of the legal standards and the facts of the particular case, so difficult to get a summary judgment. The standard that I’m familiar è with is that on a summary dismissal motion, the defendant has to accept all the facts pled by the plaintiff are true.
I did not follow this closely, but the day before jury deliberation the defense (Paltrow’s attorney) appears to have successfully painted Mr. Sanderson poorly in light of his lawsuit. Evidently, many of his health issues were present prior to the ski collision, and they showed photos of him traveling the world doing active things like hiking and rafting, in the time between the accident and the trial. His explanation was all that was part of the “healing process.”
I think the initial suit was for $3M+, but that got whittled down to $300K. Now he got nothing, except maybe notoriety no one would really want. Paltrow is kinda a kook, yes, but I agree she was in the right, and was right to push back on this.
Stephen Colbert regularly pokes fun at her Goop merchandise, and she’s appeared on his show a number of times, apparently playing along with it. I lean towards the latter.
Well, she countersued for $1, plus legal fees. So, he’s on the hook for her legal fees.
Once I heard that he was the uphill skier, I figured it was his fault. Also, his only witness was a friend, whose story changed a bit after the guy sued.
At some point, the difference is no difference. When you’re taking money from people with candles that smell like your vagina, I’m not sure there is a difference.
Disclaimer: I don’t like her, I wanted her to be wrong in the skiing accident, but alas, reality was against me.
