Law&Crime Sidebar - Gwyneth Paltrow Ski Crash Trial: Doctor Suing Actress for Skiing ‘Out of Control’

Episode Date: March 16, 2023

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is set to face off with a retired doctor in a civil trial starting March 21 over a ski crash in February 2016. Plaintiff Terry Sanderson alleges the famed actress’ skiing was “out of control” when the two collided at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago. Paltrow fired back, countersuing Sanderson for one dollar, claiming his recollection of events was incorrect and that he crashed into her. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down all the factors at play in this upcoming case with entertainment attorney Mitra Ahouraian.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Thanks again Vessi! Use SIDEBAR for 15% off your entire order! 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. You may see Gwyneth Paltrow on TV and theater screens, but right now you might be seeing her in a courtroom as her lawsuit over a 2016 ski crash is about to begin. We break down what we know so far and sit down with entertainment attorney Mitra Hurried to understand how this trial is going to play out. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. It's always important to look great, right? There's one thing that's more important, though, and that is feeling great. And you got to start from the bottom up. That's why I want to talk to you

right now about Bessie footwear. This is so cool. They're 100% waterproof, very light, more comfortable than chugging around in traditional boots, whether you're walking around in snow and slush in the city like May or taking cover from a summer rainstorm in Florida, these are the shoes that are durable and will keep you dry. You see, they're made from Dimitex. And that material keeps your feet warm in the cold, but also cool in warmer climates.

It can work both ways. Plus, there are a bunch of different styles. There's an everyday classic sneaker. There's a Chelsea boot. There's even a boat shoe. You can check them out right now at bessie.com. And for our listeners and viewers, you can use the code sidebar.

for 15% off of your entire order. Again, that's vesey.com promo code sidebar. In the story of celebrity trials, we got another one for you, and this one concerns Gwyneth Paltrow. That's right. The entrepreneur and Academy Award winning actress from films like Shallow Howl,

Seven, Shakespeare in love, the Marvel movies where she played Pepper Potts. Sometimes she knows she's in those movies. Sometimes she doesn't. Marvel fans will know what I mean by that. Anyway, you might not have even known that this legal case was happening. A lot of people didn't, but it is quite the case. So a retired doctor named Terry Sanderson has filed a lawsuit against Gwyneth Paltrow

out of Park City, Utah. And he claims that back in 2016, he was skiing at Deer Valley Resort, as was Gwyneth Poutro. Now, it seems that they were complete strangers. They didn't know each other or anything like that before what happened next. And he says that Paltrow was skiing down bandana run. This is a beginning or beginner level snow slope at this resort. And he was downhill from Paltrow.

That's important. And as Sanderson correctly points out in his complaint, downhill skiers have the right of way. The skiers that are uphill have to look out for the downhill skiers. Now, again, that is very imperative because Sanderson claims that Paltrow was skiing out of control that she was going too fast for an inexperienced skier, and she was apparently distracted. And that is when she allegedly rammed into him. And he says that she didn't just hit him to the ground, but he was knocked out causing a brain injury, a concussion, four broken ribs,

other injuries. At the time, we believe he was 69 years old and he was described in an interview or he described in an interview how difficult the recovery process has been. Just a sneeze or, you know, when your lung starts to expand to sneeze, you can't stop it. And you feel your ribs break it again. Even after three months, you can feel them cracking. I sat in a chair and I couldn't do anything. I couldn't function. And so I get so tired, I go to bed.

I just go crawling bed again. And it didn't end there because Sanderson claimed that Paltrow, not only knocked into him, but she merely got up, turned, and skied away, leaving him, injured on the ground in the snow, offering no help, not calling anyone for help. In fact, he says no one from Paltrow's group, including two employees from Deer Valley, called the Ski Patrol or emergency services to assist him. And it only gets worse, according to Sanderson. He says that a man named Eric Christensen, who is a ski instructor that was teaching Paltrow,

skied over it, skied over to him and not only didn't provide Sanderson help, but accused him of causing the crash, screaming at him. Sanderson says that Christensen didn't actually see the incident, so really, who is he to say that? And then this is a major allegation. Sanderson claims that Christensen actually filed a false incident report saying that Paltrow was not at fault. So he files this lawsuit against Gwyneth Paltrow, Eric Christensen,

Valley Resort Company, two employees, and he was originally suing for $3.1 million. Now, let's talk about this for a second. So he sues Paltrow for negligence, a very common theory of liability in personal injury law. Because in our law, in our society, people owe one another a duty of care in certain situations. There is a certain responsibility that you owe your fellow person. You have to act as a reasonable or prudent person would under those specific circumstances. and a failure to exercise that duty of care that results in someone getting hurt or injured is basically negligence. There are four elements or requirements to proving negligence in a court of law.

There is a legal duty. There is a breach or violation of that duty. The plaintiff or the person suing had to have suffered an injury or in harm. And you need to show that that breach of duty, caused the injury. So here, Sanderson argues that Paltrow had a duty to ski carefully, but instead she was skiing unsafely by going too fast, being distracted. She should have known that downhill skiers have the right of way, and she needed to take extra precautions. And as a result of this breach of her duty, she knocked into him. He suffered severe significant

injuries, duty, breach, harm causation. Now, here is something interesting. Sanderson sued Paltrow, Christensen, the other employees, Dear Valley, for negligence and also negligent infliction of emotional distress. The basic idea there was, well, due to the actions of these different defendants, namely shouting at him, falsely accusing him of wrongdoing, leaving him on the ground injured, not helping him, trying to cover up what Paltrow did, he said he suffered emotional harm, anxiety, depression, other health-related problems. Well, last year, third district judge Kent Holmberg threw out those claims. Yes, despite Sanderson claiming that he had, quote, feelings of being unable to cope with life, it was argued that Sanderson had made several domestic and international trips since the incident, and maybe he wasn't as bad off as he was claiming. There was also a skiing expert who testified that Palchro's actions after the crash were reasonable

and that she didn't flee the scene, like Sanderson claimed. In fact, a Deer Valley instructor testified that Paltrow actually did stop to make sure that Sanderson was okay. The judge's order states, quote, no one with knowledge of Ms. Paltrow's post-collision actions claims to have observed Paltrow acting recklessly, even when interpreted in the life most favorable to Sanderson, the plaintiff, the undisputed facts fail to support this claim that Paltrow's post-collision actions were likely to result in substantial harm, that they were highly unreasonable or an extreme departure from ordinary care or that they came with

an apparent in high degree of danger. So while Sanderson was initially suing for $3.1 million because of the judge's order throwing out a lot of this, it now seems that Sanderson is seeking in excess of only $300,000. So it appears that whatever happened after the crash is really not at issue in this case. It seems like the only claim left for this trial is simple. negligence on the part of Gwyneth Paltrow with respect to the crash. Did she fail to act as a reasonable skier would, and as a result, caused the crash and injured Sanderson? But that is only one side of the story.

There are always two sides of the story, right? Well, there are three sides. There's one side, the other side, and then the truth. But for these purposes, let me just talk about Poutro's side. She has filed a counterclaim against Sanderson, and Paltrow's versions of, version of events are the complete opposite of Sanderson. In her counterclaim, she says that Sanderson wasn't downhill, but was uphill. She was downhill, and it was he who crashed into her.

She was on the receiving end of a, quote, full-bodied blow from behind. And in fact, she says that Sanderson apologized to her. She also claims that Sanderson admitted that he didn't remember exactly what happened. Oh, and remember how Sanderson said Eric Christensen didn't see the crash? she says this happened right in front of him and christiansen said it was sanderson to blame for this not paltrow so in her counterclaim is she seeking thousands of dollars millions of dollars no she is seeking just one dollar in damages her injuries were relatively mild she seems to have said that it just ruined her day that there was no more skiing after this happened but what this

really appears to be is more of the principle of the thing right clearing her name. And this will certainly become a question of who to believe, because what I find really interesting about this case is there doesn't seem to be a disagreement about if this was negligence. In other words, both sides seem to agree that skiing down the mountain, crashing into someone like this is negligence. It doesn't sound like they're disagreeing that there was a duty, there was breach, there was causation, there was harm. They're just disagreeing about who was at fault. There are some other things that I want to note about this. This is a civil case. It's not a criminal case. So neither Sanderson nor Paltrow need to prove that the other is liable beyond a

reasonable doubt. Now, that's the criminal case. That's the criminal burden of proof. Here, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. So a jury would say it's more likely than not Sanderson or Paltrow is liable. Greater than 50% chance that the negligence claim is true. Here's a question. What happens if a jury thinks both Sanderson and Paltrow are at fault? We see this a lot in car crashes. Well, my understanding in Utah is that there is a comparative negligence law. So if you are at least half at fault, 50% at fault for what happened, you won't win. If you're less than 50%, you can win some money. Now, again, if one of them was downhill, it makes you wonder if that could actually be the case here. It seems like just one

person would be at fault. I will tell you, our research indicates that there could be only an eight person jury in Utah civil cases, so less people to convince either way. We believe this trial is going to start up on March 21st. There are questions of will Paltrow testify, will there be experts, what eyewitnesses will testify on both sides. You might also be asking another question, why is this going to trial? How did this not settle? Well, according to certain reporting, Sanderson allegedly tried to settle this case, but Paltrow didn't bite. If that's true, I would imagine Paltrow wants to set the record straight, suing for $1, like the bare minimum to make a lawsuit, this isn't about the money. It's about something much more. So clearly, there is a lot

going on in the Gwyneth Paltrow lawsuit. A lot of ways this could play out. And I want to bring in someone who can I, you know, I can bounce all these thoughts of, all these ideas. My head is circling right now. I want to bring in entertainment attorney Mitra O'Hurian. Mitra, so good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. Let's first start off with. Are you surprised that we're even going to be having a trial and that this didn't settle? I mean, Gwyneth Paltrow, counter suing for $1? She didn't want to settle this? It sounds like she's just holding her ground.

You know, it is unusual, but I think we're seeing it more and more where celebrity cases are going to trials. I think, you know, maybe this sentiment of fine because I can pay it and I don't want this publicized. fine, let's just settle. But I think, you know, what's happened here is that she believes very firmly that it was not her fault, that they're really bumping heads over this. And I think that she wants to really say that I'm not just going to settle it out. No, I didn't do anything wrong. Is it a bigger risk for her to have settled this for an undisclosed amount because we know that settlements would be private versus her going to trial and losing? What's a bigger risk for her? because she has a successful business, she's a successful actress, although I don't think

she's acting as much as she used to, but Goop is tremendous. Is it a bigger risk for her to lose the trial or settle? Potentially, but we have an interesting situation where you have witnesses that are actually on her side. So this is something that happened two years ago. This is something that there's not a lot of, you know, perhaps investigation into what actually happened. It actually happened in 2016. So yeah, this is a little bit of an older case. Oh, but the lawsuit was 2019. So he brought it two years after it happened. Yeah, three.

Yeah. So, you know, the point being really that it was a while back. It was a while before he brought the lawsuit. There was a period of time where he was just trying to contact her and say, hey, can we settle this? And he wasn't getting the acknowledgement that he hoped to get that she had some sort of responsibility. And I think that's what led to this lawsuit, which of course we know started at a 3.1 million dollar lawsuit and now it's down to 300,000 because the judge kicked out this idea of

her hitting and run you know the hit and run theory that he had um which brought the which kicked out the punitive damages that would have brought it to 3.1 million but in terms of it being a risk i mean she thinks she's got the support of the witnesses and that combined with the fact that he's admitted to sort of being knocked out for five or six minutes um And, you know, I think that arguably his memory would be foggy. So I think it's hard to kind of, for him to say, this is exactly where I was. This is exactly what happened because he says that even when he woke up, he, you know, knew his name. He knew he'd been skiing.

He didn't know where he was. It took him a while to come to. So, yeah, it's a risk. But at the same time, it just sounds like a risk she's willing to take because she must feel very strongly that, you know what? you're not going to come after me just because this happened. And what I find so interesting about it is it doesn't seem to be a dispute that this is negligence. So the idea is they're both saying, well, if you ski, you crash into the skier who's downhill, this is negligence. We're not fighting that this is, you know, that meets the requirements of negligence.

It's just who's at fault. So do you think the jury is going to come back and find that one of them was responsible for this and one of them is liable? or could the jury come back and say this was a complete accident, no one is liable, or a third option, I mentioned this earlier, comparative negligence in the sense that maybe both were at fault and both don't get any payout. It's interesting because you don't, it's a true he said, she said, with some witnesses that are supporting Gwyneth Paltrow. And I think one of his friends also is a witness that says that, you know, it was her,

it was at fault. So again, even more of a he said, she said. And it's very possible that, you know, you're skiing. There's an assumption of risk there. There are people who have, you know, unfortunately died skiing. I ski. I'm always terrified of something happening. My brother broke a couple bones when I was a little kid and that was traumatizing enough for me to see that stuff like this happens. It's not unusual. And, you know, it's very possible for a jury to say, you know what, this was just an accident, like you said, everybody walk away, or this idea of comparative negligence that you brought up is a really interesting one, because the jury would have to find facts consistent with the fact that both of them did something that was negligent, that was,

you know, almost equally or in part negligent. And I think those facts aren't really supported either. Right. Because it's different than a car crash where somebody might be speeding through a red light, and another person, you know, was speeding in another way. Because here it seems that it's all going to come down to who was downhill and who was uphill. Because if I'm understanding it correctly, whoever's downhill, they're really not to blame for what happened. Yeah, I mean, you're skiing, you know, I don't know with the helmet and goggles and I think. I'm not looking behind me, you know, most times. Maybe I'll kind of look, you know, around me.

But I'm not really turning around because that's going to mess with my equilibrium. so it's under you know makes sense for the person that's you know that's ahead um or uphill to be the one that's really responsible for looking out and seeing what's in front of them and of course he's saying she was distracted which okay her kids are there she's watching her kids she's you know presumably behind her kids it's possible it's possible she was distracted if truly she was uphill um and i i just i don't see this being the kind of case where you're going to have any of like physical evidence come in or any expert witnesses who are coming and saying that that's interesting you say that so because i would imagine her side would bring in experts to say hey all these

injuries that he claims he suffered he didn't really suffer them i don't know that okay so there's that one aspect of it right so the aspect is that he didn't really suffer this so you might have a medical expert but it's not the same way you know as in a car accident where you can have somebody look at a car and say okay this was the precise force that it was hit okay this is the precise angle. And, you know, of course, you have two people who are, two people who are very different in, you know, height, weight, size. And I think that that's going to play into Gwyneth Paltrow's argument as well. Well, there could be an expert who says these are the standard protocols. These are the rules on the ski mountain. You know, if you're downhill, you have the right away. I mean,

I imagine they're going to bring somebody like that. Yeah. I think it's kind of like the pedestrian argument, at least in California. California's pedestrians have the right away. wait no matter what uh come to new york see how that works got um let me ask you this they what i thought you mentioned something that kind of hit my ear a little bit she's going to have people from dear valley her supporter you know people who were with her saying she was she was had the right of way she was doing the correct thing sanderson was at fault he might bring as you mentioned i think there was a friend who was there as well and saw that gwynna paltrow was at fault Gwyneth Paltrow, as this very famous person, having the backing of Deer Valley, is the jury going to give that more weight than somebody they really don't know, this doctor who brought this lawsuit against her?

Is that going to give her more credibility, her star power, the backing of the Deer Valley Resort versus, you could argue, Sanderson's the underdog? Yeah, I had that, you know, kind of a little bit of a nagging thought, too, of, okay, well, this is going to. She's, you know, paying what I assume is a lot of money to have her kids, you know, be at Deer Valley and have this ski instructor, this private ski instructor. And so I would have, I had this little nagging thought of like, are they, you know, supporting her because they're really kind of on her side? But at the end of the day, I mean, this is a, you know, this is a ski facility, right? So it's a resort. They have their own interest sort of in, they were initially named in the lawsuit, but normally when you ski, you sign all sorts of releases and things like that. So, you know, you would think that they would be far more credible as people who are part of the resort, who see things like this happen, who are on alert because they're, you know, they're teaching or they're there all the time.

they're familiar, more familiar with the slopes and how, you know, and, you know, kind of the speeds that might be likely from a particular, you know, slope or things like that, they're more familiar. And so I think from a credibility standpoint, they are presumably more credible, but you do have the celebrity element, which is quite interesting. Yeah, it was one thing when we watched Depp versus Heard, you know, the celebrity aspect to celebrities. Obviously, you could say that Johnny Depp was more famous than Amber Hurd, but that was a factor that we always talked about. Let's talk about the money pay out here

because even though he's suing for $300,000 or in excess of $300,000, she's $1. Could a jury come back and say, I'm going to award them more than that? You know, if he's not asking for more, I don't see a jury coming back and saying, you know, giving him more than that. And, you know, again,

it was kicked down from 3.1 million down to 300,000, which I find to be kind of an interesting number because, you know, four broken ribs brain injuries, if you've ever sort of been, you know, at a hospital or had an ongoing injury like a brain injury or, you know, sort of the symptoms that he's saying he has after this, you know. And so if you think of that, I mean, 300,000 seems kind of low if you're going to add in, you know, sort of this. pain and suffering element and all that, which, you know, I don't know if that's going to play into it at this point, but it doesn't seem like a high number. So I could, I see your point, but I don't know that that it's the kind of situation where a jury would necessarily award him

more, especially given the facts are sort of, you know, gray here. And Mitra, before I let you go, you think, excuse me, do you think Gwyneth Paltrow is going to take the stand and testify and explain what happened? I imagine he will. And if she does that, I'll ask you a second. part, is this trial going to blow up and look like Depp v. Heard? I don't see this going on forever. I think that, you know, it's kind of this one incident. It's not this ongoing thing that happened. It's one incident. It's sort of limited to, you know, just a few minutes of what happened there. And all we really have is some witnesses and perhaps, like you said, maybe some experts. But I think she is going to take the stand. I think it is

going to come down to her testimony and the testimony of the witnesses. And she's, you know, she's poised. She is well spoken. And it sounds like in this situation, she is really because she's standing her ground, I imagine that she would want to tell her side of the story. And to be honest, without that, I think the jury would sort of be questioning her case. All right. So we will wait and see.

Mityra, hurry. And thank you so much for taking the time. Tell everybody where they can find you or learn more about what you do. So on Instagram, M-R-E-S-Q, M-I-T-R-A-E-S-Q, sort of the best way. That's my handle everywhere, Twitter, all of that. All right, Mitra, thank you. Thanks. And 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.