Law&Crime Sidebar - 8 Key Moments That Led to Gwyneth Paltrow's Victory in Ski Crash Trial

Episode Date: March 31, 2023

Gwyneth Paltrow faced off in court against a man who claimed the actress crashed into him while skiing, causing him long-term debilitating injuries. After hearing the evidence, a jury found Terry Sanderon's claims to be false and sided with Paltrow. The Law & Crime Network's Jesse Weber breaks down eight major moments that likely led to Gwyneth Paltrow’s win in her ski crash lawsuit.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Was Gwyneth Paltrow at fault? No. Was Gwyneth Paltrow's fault a cause of Terry Sanderson's harm? There's just no response there. Was Terry Sanderson at fault? Yes. Was Terry Sanderson's fault?

Did Terry Sanderson's fault cause Gwyneth Paltrow's harm? Yes. Comparative fault. What percent of the fault do you assign to Terry Sanderson? 100%. damages what amount fairly compensates quidth paltrow for economic damages one dollar signed march 30th 2003 we go over the major moments that may have led to gwyneth paltrow's win in her ski crash lawsuit welcome to sidebar presented by law and crime i'm jesse weber

So it may not have reached the cultural phenomenon or fascination that was the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial. But nonetheless, the nation was talking about and captivated by Gwyneth Paltrow's ski crash lawsuit trial. You see, the actress and entrepreneur was sued by a retired eye doctor named Terry Sanderson. Sanderson argued that back in 2016, while he and Paltrow were both skiing at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Paltrow negligently slammed into him from behind, severely injuring him. And he claimed that he suffered broken ribs, a brain injury, that his life has never been the same. He sued her for over $300,000 in damages. Paltrow not only defended herself, but she actually filed a countersuit, a counterclaim for $1 as well as her attorney's fees.

And her argument could not be more diametrically opposed to Sanderson's because she says that Sanderson is the one who skied into her, that he hit her from behind, that she. she was the victim. You have two completely different accounts of what happened. And it really came down to negligence. Did someone fail to act as a reasonable skier would under the circumstances? And therefore, they were at fault for what happened. And really, it comes down to who was the downhill skier, right? Because as we learned during the course of this trial, the downhill skier has the right of way. Uphill skiers have to look out for the downhill skiers. And of course, both Paltrow and Sanderson, they each claimed they were the downhill skier. Well, the jury clearly did not believe Mr. Sanderson. It only took them a few hours to come back with a unanimous verdict against him.

They determined he was 100% at fault for this, and Paltrow won her case and cleared her name. She will be awarded $1 and her attorney's fees, which we don't really know how much they will end up being, but they could be quite costly since this litigation has been going on for several years. years. How did this happen? Had the jury come to the decision? So we thought, let's go through some of the major moments that may have led to Paltrow winning this lawsuit. And first up, Paltrow's testimony. She took the stand. In fact, she was called by Sanderson as a witness, which plaintiffs can do in civil cases. They are allowed to call the defendant. And she said that she was in no way responsible for what happened. You were going along relatively slowly. Is that fair?

Yes. Okay. I'm just going to kind of ask you a couple questions. So let me know if anything I say is not accurate. Okay. So you're going down relatively slowly when all of a sudden you heard a strange rustling noise behind you. Yes.

Okay. And you felt like a rush of air in a strange way. Yes. Okay. And two skis slid in between my skis. That's correct. And all of a sudden there was a ball. body from the whole front of a body pressing into my back.

That's right. Okay. Like, we'll talk about this in a minute. And there was a man behind me pressing into me. How did you know it was a man? Because he was making some strange noises that sounded male. And he was large. So I assumed it was a male.

Okay, he was large? I felt all my back. Okay, pressing. Okay. All right, there was a man pressing behind me, pressing into me. I was extremely upset. Well, I was confused at first, and I didn't know exactly what was happening. It's a very strange thing to happen on the ski slope. I agree. And I froze, and I would say I got very upset a couple seconds later. Okay. Let me just continue on here. I just want to make sure that I got this all right. I didn't know if it was an intentional assault of a sexual nature. Right. Okay. Was he grinding and thrusting or something or just the noises? What's what what what made you think

it was a sexual assault? So that was a quick thought that went through my head when I was trying to reconcile what was happening. I was skiing, and two skis came between my skis, forcing my legs apart, and then there was a body pressing against me, and there was a very strange grunting noise. So my brain was trying to make sense of what was happening. I thought, am I, is this a practical joke? Is someone like doing something perverted? This is really, really strange. My mind was going very, very quickly, and I was trying to ascertain what was happening. Okay. And I think you said, I didn't know if it was an accident, but he was groaning and grunting in a very disturbing way. Yes, there was a sort of groan coming out of his mouth. Okay. Then you said,

I froze. Yes. We kept skiing. Right. We went to the right. Yes. We came crashing down together. That's right. Okay. You said this man was behind me on the mountain. My knee and our skis were still sort of tangled up. Mm-hmm. Is that yes? Yes. Okay. Our bodies were almost spooning, and I moved away quickly.

Yes. And my knee splayed open, and I was completely in shock. Yes. Okay. Because Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on that ski slope, and that is the truth. Now, why is this important? It's important because, obviously, her testimony we knew was going to be vital, but a juror has actually come out and spoken.

with ABC News, and she said that her decision, a lot of it came down to Paltrow's testimony and her credibility. And that's interesting because when you think about it, Paltrow decided to fight this, right? She didn't have to be there. She could have settled this case. She's countersuing for $1. The idea being, if I don't really have to be here, why am I here? Why did I do this? Because I'm telling the truth. And you can argue it paid off for her to do this. And also speaking of this juror. The juror also said that the testimony of biomechanical engineer Dr. Irving sure played a very big role in her decision making. So this was a defense expert who actually broke down the science of the collision. Let's go back to that question. I was asking you,

in your opinion, is Ms. Paltrow's account consistent with what you know about biomechanical engineering. Yes, it is. And maybe another way to put that is, is it consistent with the loss of physics? It's the same question, yes. Yeah, exactly. And Dr. Shore would also say that Craig Ramon, the person that the defense claimed was the only direct eyewitness to the ski crash that day, a man who said that he witnessed Paltrow hitting into Sanderson. Well, Dr. Shore says that Craig Ramon's version of events don't quite make sense. What about Mr. Ramon's version? For Mr. Ramon's version, I couldn't get it to work.

It doesn't match with the laws of physics. The complete part of his testimony just doesn't fit. So in Mr. Ramon's version, he says that he sees Ms. Paltrow contact Mr. Sanderson squarely in the back. Remember, Mr. Ramon says that his skis are in a V. spread eagle so now if that were to happen then he stops very quickly and miss Paltrow is going to remain at in contact somewhere around here and her skis are going to stay underneath Mr. Sanderson when that happens It's like the center of mass continuing to move forward while the skis slow rapidly,

which creates an upward force at that heel. It's going to create a heel release. But as you heard in the testimony, all the skis were on. It doesn't work. It takes actually very little force for this to release, the heel piece to release, in a scenario like this. So it doesn't match with physics. And it's the same way whether one ski or both skis are in between. And Dr. Schur would go on to say that maybe Sanderson's injuries couldn't only have been caused by Paltrow colliding into him.

Does a 70-year-old man need to fall on his side with his elbow between him and the ground to cause rib fractures? No, you can get lateral rib fractures, according to the biomechanical engineering literature. You can get lateral rib fractures with an impact of the side with your arm down or with your arm up. But you can also get lateral rib fractures from compression, so front-to-back compression of the chest. So if I press my chest in like this, what happens is the ribs actually bend out on the side, and that can create fractures on the side, and that's quite common as well. So rib fractures are not just from side contact. It can be from front-to-back compression as well.

So again, that was important testimony, but I do want to talk right now about the problematic testimony of the man I just mentioned, Mr. Ramon. Again, a key witness for Sanderson. He said he witnessed Paltrow collide into Sanderson. But listen to what he said when he was questioned by Paltrow's attorney. Did you once in that deposition say that Eric Christensen told you that Gwyneth took Terry out? No.

Did you say that today? No, no, what I meant to say. I get dyslexic when I get nervous. No, he said that your buddy just took out with it. All right, I was a little confused by some of the questioning. Okay. Okay, so Christensen always said your buddy took out. Gwenith Paltrow right yes all right did you correct him no wouldn't that be

the perfect time to say you are incorrect sir I wasn't he he was yelling and I didn't didn't want to get into an argument with him you were you had did you finish his answer did you finish yeah I didn't want to have a conversation with him so there There's the Deer Valley representative, true? Yes. And he's told you what he believes happened, true. Yes.

And you didn't say a word. No. But seven years later, you're saying it now, right? Saying what? That Gwena took out your buddy, not the other way around. No, no, but he, no, he didn't. Gwenith, Terry, what Eric said was your buddy took out Gwyneth. That's what he said.

I never said that Terry took out Gwyneth. But you chose not to correct him. No. Yeah, so he had some credibility issues. And look, as much as he was saying, want to start a fight that day. I didn't want to bring anything up. It sure looks questionable that he only came out after the fact and said that Poucher was responsible. Seems the jury didn't quite believe Mr. Ramon's account. Now, let's actually move on to somebody you just heard about,

Eric Christensen. This is the ski instructor that was working with Paltrow and her children that day on the ski slope. And there was evidence that was presented by Sanderson's side, including from Sanderson's own testimony, that claimed Christensen skied over right after the craft, and started yelling at Sanderson, blaming him for what happened, didn't even bother to help him, didn't even bother to help him get up. And also, this was part of an earlier claim that was actually dismissed by the judge before trial started because Sanderson had claimed that Christensen falsified an accident report to cover up for Paltrow. Now, interesting to think about because the idea here was that Paltrow was a high paying client. Was he trying to protect her? This was ultimately ruled to not be a hit-and-run type of accident.

This claim that Sanderson had against Christensen and Deer Valley Resort was ultimately dismissed. And so this really wasn't explored so much during the course of the trial. But it was something to think about. And perhaps another blow to Sanderson's case came from when we heard Eric Christensen himself. Maybe 10 seconds. Mr. Sanderson said you got in his face and yelled at him. I did not. The tone of my voice would be very similar to what it is right now.

You skied over and you yelled at Terry Sanderson. What did you do? What did you do? True. That is not true. You don't yell at all in your life? I did not yell. First of all, I was trying to observe what was happening. Well, then the other students go another direction.

You never raise your voice at Deer Valley? Is that your policy? If I raise my voice, I lose my voice very quickly. I can't yell. You know, as far as talking to students, you try to maintain a class situation where we will stop at certain places. We will gather together. We try to always gather at the edge of the run, so we're out of the line of traffic. But, no, I don't go around yelling all over the resort. I didn't say that. I just said, do you ever yell once to add a student who might be too far away from your group? And you want them to come back?

No, they can't come back. If they're below you, you have to go to them. They're not going to come up the hill. You can't say, hey, come back over here, Bill. Oh, I might say, if they're just across the run, I will say things like that. But I'm not yelling. You're whispering or? No, I'm talking in a normal voice.

But if there's a lift machinery or that there's noise or something, you never raise your voice at all while you're ski instructing? This is getting a little silly, don't you think? Not sure that was the most effective way of getting a witness to say what you want them to say, but once again, Sanderson lost this case, so perhaps the jury believed what Christensen was saying. Now, as we cover why Terry Sanderson may have lost this ski crash lawsuit case against Gwyneth Paltrow, arguably some of the biggest weaknesses of his case came from when he himself

took the stand and said that he was the victim. I just remember everything was great. And then I heard something I've never heard of a ski resort. And that was a blood-curdling scream. Just, I can't do it. It was, ah, and then, boom. And it was like somebody was out of control and going to hit a tree and was going to die. And that's what I had until I was hit. Okay, now you might look at that and say he's telling the truth. He seems pretty credible about what happened, right? The only problem is what happened when he was questioned by Stephen Owens, Paltrow's attorney.

And that is when the cracks started to show. First, Owen showed that Sanderson had some major inconsistencies, which is never good for any witness, let alone the star witness, the defendant. When we talked about you being unconscious, and do you agree that someone who's unconscious doesn't have a stopwatch to figure out how long they were actually unconscious? I agree, that's true. Do you agree that you weren't stop watching?

yourself. I have no idea. Yeah. And yet you, you did tell people, it varied over time, first a few seconds, then five minutes, then ten minutes. You did that, right? Do you disagree? Yes, it did vary. And why did you do that? Why would you say, I don't know, then it's a few seconds, Then it's five minutes, and then you told your psychiatrist at the VA, it was up to 10 minutes long. Why did you change? I had no idea, and I was searching. I really had no idea, and I was trying to answer. I sometimes make that mistake, guessing, but I really didn't know.

And it was to try to get the attention of the doctor. And Owens would pick on any inconsistent statement that Sanderson made in the past, including in depositions. But really, where he honed in on, was a controversial, email that Sanderson sent to his daughters after the accident. You know, whenever someone sues a celebrity, a central question and a common question is, are they only going after that person for the money? Are they only going after that person for the attention, for the fame? Well, listen to Sanderson being challenged about an email that he wrote to his daughters,

again, after the accident, saying, I'm famous and his explanation for it. I wrote, I'm famous. because it's cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. Was that your thinking at the time? And you said yes. Do you deny it? Not if you have it on record. No, I don't deny it.

I don't remember it. Well, let's go to page 15. Can you bring that up? Move to publish the deposition. I've never thought it was cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. Did you recall that? Yes, I guess I did say that, absolutely. And that's not a true statement, is it?

You have said this in your deposition, true? Honestly, I don't ever remember saying it. Bring it up whenever you can. But I don't doubt you. I misspeak a lot. Okay, this is page 15, line 5 through 8. So the words, I'm famous, this is my question, seem to say, I think it's cool that I had a collision with a celebrity.

Was that your thinking at the time, and your answer was yes, I guess, yes. Do you recall saying that you agreed that saying I'm famous was a crazy thing to say? Agreed? Absolutely, it's not me. Don't buy into that. But it was you, right? Just to be clear. When you say it wasn't me, it was in fact you.

It's the other personality that's inhabiting my body right now. Something to point out there, Sanderson had claimed that he suffered a severe brain injury after the crash. And that's what it seemed he meant by another personality. But not only does he say he misspeaks, but the timing of this email and his explanation, you have to think, didn't work out too great for him. It only reinforces the idea that he's the one who started all of this against Paltrow for the wrong reasons. and she again chose to defend this. As I mentioned, she could have settled this case out of court, but she chose to fight this.

So you have to imagine this helped her side. And by the way, Mr. Owens also suggested that Sanderson was embellishing the account of what happened that day and really hit him in particular about sensationalized statements he made, particularly to the press years before the trial. Upon filing your lawsuit, In a press conference, compare my client to King Kong coming out of the jungle. Yes or no?

That was not my intention. Did you do that? Did I make up those words or those your words to the press? I'm not sure, but probably sounds familiar. Do you dispute it? I dispute my intentions. That's all I. King Kong coming out of the jungle.

Press conference. Pardon? Press conference. I was pretty. Did you say those words about my client? I meant to say King Kong, just chase someone out of the jungle. That's what I meant. Did you refer to her as Godzilla to your daughter?

I did not. I don't remember that. She testified to that. I don't remember that. It's gone. Sorry. You told everyone it was a hit and run, right? Wrote to your own hometown newspaper and said,

she hit and ran me. I did say that. And that's been dismissed by this court. You understand that? So the argument of B, this all goes to him embellishing details, sensationalizing what happened, trying to get attention and put Paltrow in a very bad light and also kind of making fun of her, by the way. And as we've been showing, whatever Sanderson said didn't help him because the jury came back

and said he was 100% at fault, which brings me to one final point. And this is the point, that juror who I mentioned spoke with ABC News, she hit on this as well. One of Sanderson's main arguments is, well, I was so affected by what Paltrow did to me, I haven't been the same. I've had extensive injuries. My relationships have changed. I've become a different person. I am a shell of a man that I used to be. Well, Stephen Owens said, not so fast.

Post-incident travel by Dr. Sanderson, Mr. Sanderson. Did you go to Peru? Yes. After the collision. All of these are after the collision, okay? Yes. Visit Matu Picchu? Costa Rica, yes.

Walk the Golden Trail? Yes. Matu Picchu is in Peru. Yes. Floated down the Amazon? Yes, I guess so. Costa Rica. Did you do a Zip?

Zip line? Same trip, yes. Did you go to Europe? Visit Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium. With my daughter, Jenny, yes. Bottom half, James, please. Did you go to the Netherlands three times? I don't remember. Well, if you're disputing it, then we pull it out of your, out of your deposition. I don't remember. I have no reason to dispute it or agree. Okay. Morocco twice? True? likely, very likely. Canary Islands, I need to know if you're disputing these things. I can't dispute it now.

Thailand. Did you go to Thailand after the collision? Yes. Did you visit at least the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho? After the collision? Probably, yes. Let's go to 1147. You're a Facebooker, right? At least you were at the time. You posted a lot on social media? Relative to other people didn't seem like I did, very little.

All of these pictures are from your personal Facebook after the collision. Okay. Remember that juror I mentioned speaking with ABC News after the verdict? She said, quote, you know, I wouldn't have thought he was capable of those things based on the picture he painted. And that was a major problem for Mr. Sanderson. Because Palchro's team suggested not only was he over-exaggerating his injuries, but whatever changes he had to his personality or any deficits he had, it was all a result of him getting older and prior health conditions he had before the accident

and not from anything Paltrow did to him. And clearly, the jury believed that. After the verdict, Paltrow released a statement saying, quote, I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity. I am pleased with the outcome and I appreciate all of the hard work. of Judge Holmberg and the jury and thank them for their thoughtfulness in handling this case. And not only that, according to Mr. Sanderson, after the case concluded, Paltrow actually went up to him in court and whispered, I wish you well.

That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.