Listen to attorneys’ differing accounts of Gwyneth Paltrow’s ski accident

Terry Sanderson has accused Gwyneth Paltrow of crashing into him and causing him serious injuries while they were both skiing on a Utah mountain in February 2016. Sanderson had initially sued Paltrow for $3.1 million dollars, but later amended his complaint and is now seeking in excess of $300,000 in damages, according to court documents. Paltrow is seeking $1 in damages, plus attorneys fees. Source is POOL/CourtTV. #CNN #News


    1. My thoughts exactly! Sounded like he didn’t practice this story once. Just making it up as he went.🤣🤣🤣

  1. I don’t know which story is true, but as someone who has gotten into these kinds of legal issues before, the one part that rings true to me is when immediately after the incident the perpetrator boldfaced lies and says “you ran into me!” That has been pulled on me more than once and it’s absolutely infuriating.

  2. The story and injuries, that guy sustained, is much more credible, than whatever b.s, her attorney, was trying to say! I really want to see a re-creation, of how her attorney is describing what had happened.

    1. The guy would have had to fall off a ski lift to break 4 ribs unless he was 90 years old. Something stinks here.

    1. I was thinking the same thing! He’s all, “She…uhhh…heard…err, saw…uhhh…skis between her skis. The first thing she thought was ‘am I being assaulted?’ and then she…uhhh…”. 🙄
      It’s like she found that lawyer on Wish.

  3. If you have been on a ski hill, it sounds like another day at the office. Deep pockets suit, if you worry about injury, you should not be out there. Stay out of the middle, stop on the edge, assess traffic before going to the next segment. If she did that, she probably could have avoided this, it sounds like a traffic collision, the uphill skier has the responsibility. Relative skill would determine who is telling the truth and who ran into someone in traffic, I assume her skill is high if the other guy’s skill is not, I would assume he ran into her. And you know you are not being attacked, they can’t tell who you are with a helmet and goggles, yet again some armature is running into you.

  4. Only one of them could’ve been downhill from the other. That’s the good innocent party. You’re not supposed to stop randomly if you can help it, but you’re definitely required to do your best to avoid hitting someone downhill from you. And if one person is too hurt to go on, you both stay put until ski patrol comes.

  5. Ive run into or flown off of everything on a ski slope and managed to never truck over another human being. The few times ive found a person wrecked on a hill, I also stuck around long enough for the ski patrol to arrive.

  6. Seems like the second one is doing far more manipulation of the picture he’s trying to paint.

  7. I’m very confused. I understand how the collision could’ve happened if Gwenyth was
    the one that ran into the guy from behind, but her attorney’s account of what happened made little to no sense. It sounds like she’s claiming the guy was behind her, his skis interlocked hers and they fell sideways (well. he fell sideways) but somehow Gwenyth fell on top of the guy that was behind her. How? If the ski’s were interlocked causing them both to lose their balance and he basically took her down with him (as implied by her lawyer) then she should have fallen on her side in front of him. If anything, he should’ve fallen on top of her. She fell on him so logistically doesn’t that mean she had to be behind him and if she was behind him then wouldn’t that also mean that she was the one that crashed into him? Also, he was clearly more injured. Gwyneth was unscathed. That really only makes sense if she crashed into him at a higher speed. If this interaction was as slow as her lawyer claims then how did this guy end up with broken ribs and a concussion? This account really isn’t adding up for me. I also think inserting the language about her thinking she was being assaulted and the guy grunting was purely to paint him as a creep and remind the jury of the dangers women face daily. It feels almost like she was hinting at a metoo moment without actually coming right out and saying it. Finally her lawyer saying the man apologized because Gwenyth said he was at fault doesn’t mean she was telling the truth. The argument he doesn’t deny apologizing but he doesn’t remember it (cuz he had a concussion) is also ludicrous. He has a witness. It’s possible that witness told him after the fact that she hit him & then blamed him so he realized he shouldn’t have apologized, but he could’ve said sorry just because he has manners. That’s not an admission of guilt. If someone bumps into me I still say sorry. It’s just being polite. IMO, Gwenyth is to blame (based on her story just not adding up) & she should lose this case & be glad this guy reduced the amount he’s asking for. If it’s determined she lied & blamed him then I hope he gets more through punitive damages. That’s just gross to do if that’s the case.

    1. Exactly the point. Paltrow’s argument makes no sense because it couldn’t have happened the way her lawyer described. Given her lack of injuries and his documented ones.

      She was the one to hit the skier who was lower down on the hill and landed on him because he had the broken ribs and concussion and a witness who can account for what happened. And she behaved like a rich a$$hole when it happened. So all punitive damages to Sanderson – if the other witnesses and evidence bear up under examination.

    2. You are not confused at all. You have your mind made up regardless of the facts. Both sides of the story have it that Paltrow had stopped. Have you ever tried to look backwards up a hill while moving on skis. It can’t be done. In her version the guy came up from behind her and their skis got entangled with her falling on him. Probably backwards. Want to know what doesn’t make sense. Paltrow turning her head back to look at her children, and then moving down the hill at enough speed to catch another skier from behind.

  8. If Sanderson is face down in the snow, with a concussion and broken ribs, supposedly unconscious, how is the alleged conversation even happening? If see was looking at her kids, did they see what happened? Paltrow’s story sounds questionable.

  9. The guy was injured and she took off. If you have an accident on the slopes you yell and tell someone to get the ski patrol and you should help the one injured. She did not. I believe the lawyer for the man. 4 broken ribs and a head injury and she leaves the screen? You can’t fake those injuries. The hospital has the records.

  10. For all the comments questioning why she didn’t hire a better lawyer, you’ve overlooked one key detail. Her story just isn’t credible; no one is going to believe it. This is probably the best lawyer that didn’t refuse to take her case. Heck, I bet even this guy doesn’t believe it, but took the case anyway because he can now say that he’s represented a Hollywood celebrity and jack up his fee.

  11. That’s the thing with Americans – they think that someone saying I’m sorry is an admission of guilt. If that were really true, in Canada we’d all be in jail.

  12. She honestly couldn’t throw the guy a 100k for his pain and suffering as rich as she is. Especially if he was hurt. Obviously she is far better off but I get why she wouldn’t want to if she did nothing wrong! Even if it was an accident!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.