My son was snowboarding a month ago and just about the exact same thing happened. The guy careened right into him. They both made sure each other was okay and left it at that. This whole case is ridiculous and such a waste of time.
@@mananimal3644 What trial are you watching?I heard her state that after he hit her from behind, she fell on top of him and ended up on the ground. Doesn't sound like somebody who ran into him and simply carried on skiing without stopping. The animation shared here supports her account. As well, his brain scans that were presented in trial showed that he had a previous brain injury dating back to 2009, nothing showed up on the scans from the recent collision. That doesn't mean he wasn't injured but it certainly doesn't prove it's her fault. And if she cursed at him and went on as you claim, then isn't it more likely he is at fault?
I began skiing as a young child, for approx. 40 yrs. I can't count the amount of time I've been cut off, run into , and accidentally cut off and run into others. I have experienced bumbs, bruises, minor cuts, minor concussions, sprained ankle. If nobody is seriously injured such as becoming a paraplegic, etc., you get up, help the other skier up, dust yourself off and away you go down the hill. Of course I am Canadian🇨🇦 and we are not in the game of sueing others just to get rich over such minor infractions. This sport can be very dangerous for all partaking in it, this is a given, this reality needs to be understood and accepted by all who strap on alpine skis.
Yes. I was shocked by the "ski rule that you exchange info". I was taken out whistler by a guy flailing down a run. He said sorry. I got up, bruised all over, rode the rest of the day
I ski & snowboard. I've been injured multiple times, even broken bones, but it never occurred to me to sue anyone over it. I figure I chose to participate in a dangerous activity, then I need to accept the consequences of my choices. You make that choice to ski at his age with all his preexisting medical issues, that's like 90% odds you are going to get hurt.
After having an accident with someone, I can’t imagine yelling profanities at them instead of asking if they are OK, she is awful and this is absolutely a money grab
He's suing for 300,000 that's not really "rich" money, also considering he was a successful optometrist and skiing there is not cheap. And since she left the scene and didn't help the man who was knocked out that in my book makes her guilty as sin.
@ITSONLYMEWATCHING are you actually following the trial & listening objectively to all the testamony? He actually started out suing for 3.1 million. The judge threw out a large chuck of his claims, knocking it back to 300k. 3.1 million is a huge red flag that's not compensation, that's greed. She did not just take off or leave him unconscious on the ground. The ski patrol was there and assessed him. He told the staff was OK, he got up & skied down the hill. Any normal person would have differed to ski lodge staff & assume they have the training & experience to handle a crash. The staff had her information entered it into their reports & gave it to him a copy. Had the ski patrol told me I could leave & go to my kids, I would have gone just like GP did. Also, Sanderson already tried to sue the ski lodge & failed miserably.
@ejwis1 Yes, he might be a hazard because of his various health problems listed during this hearing, including a bad back, but one-eyed people can legally drive and do it all the time. They adjust. A friend of mine had an eye destroyed as a 4 years old and thereafter had several realistic custom glass eyes produced over the years through his doctor's office. He's now 66 and has never had a car accident. I used to ride to work with him, and have gone on trips with him. He's a better driver than most people I know, including me. Calm, steady, smooth, polite, doesn't take risks. I felt very safe with him. He always held a job and drove to and from work. He was an electronic technician, then a roofer, climbing up and down ladders and on to roofs. He did all the normal things. It's not an unusual situation, and it's entirely legal to drive with one eye. The Mr Sanford in this case seems to be a little frail and have several health problems affecting his physical abilities. I'm not so sure I'd ski if I were him.
Same!!! Not a fan and I can’t stand her actually but more inclined to believe her on this one. The other guy was contradicting his own statements and own deposition. Sketchy!!!!
@@xengzulueta147 Right, and was I hearing there was a go pro but its conveniently missing or something like that? Or did I miss something? And then his friend says he didn't remember his own name, but when T is on stand says when asked he did know his name and responded appropriately. I am just going off my psych experience and behavioral analysis observation. I don't even care about this simulation they doing. Behavioral analysis was all I needed. Simulation wasn't needed, nor should it have been allowed, but whatever.
@@donaldroberson7659 its simulation of could be situation, not actual video of it. Was not needed for me to make a decision. It is theoretical to me. Not evidence.
I have run up the back of a car because I was distracted by my children. Children are very distracting to a mother and a mother will usually divert attention to her child if they call….
She admitted her son was on her left and a bit uphill from her. I’ve skied my whole life, no way she was paying attention and why was she skiing on the same run as her children when she paid $9600 to ski with an instructor? She was there to watch her kids period.
He had 4 broken ribs and concussion, that is not a minor accident! And there wouldn't be "all this" if she had just admitted her fault and payed him out of court.
My thing is if Gwyneth was totally at fault, they probably could have settled out of court and opened up her Hermès wallet. My point being, maybe there is more to this story
Sanderson obviously crashed into Paltrow from behind. He was "always" behind her in the animated trial and he was skiing from "side to side" (all over that run). I am a skier and I have been on ski patrol in Alaska. According to that animated trial the run looks like an easy and wide run. It shows Sanderson skiing as more of a beginner ( less confident - "wide" turns) and Paltrow an intermediate and safe skier (skiing directly down the fall line - "quick/narrow turns").
@@luxconcept Sanderson said 'she appeared in front of me out of nowhere. This means he couldn't have been downhill from her unless she was skiing uphill and backwards.
@@AqworldsMew11 I get that. When I had my TBI, I wasn’t traveling all over the world afterwards like this guy did. It’s seems he sent a ton of money, is broke and needs the money to pay off his debts from all his travel he did after having a TBI. Sorry but I don’t buy his story.
@@jcfc8197 I'd believe the one with actual injures and any holes in a story can be explained by the fact that he had a concussion he hit his head when she hit him. Gwyneth has always acted holier-than-thou I believe that she may have done this kind of thing.
He was fine until he learned that her name is Paltrow, everything changed then. The truth will prevail and this animation makes all very clear. Let justice be served!
@@tamitribbiani7907 yeap but you are not going to risk your life again. For doing River Rafting or any extreme sport. The guy is for the money once he found out the Celebrity ha ha ha.
Right .. he was all over the place and she was in her lil zone. I can’t believe the defense seen this video and still continued with trial and embarrass themselves
I've been skiing for 48 years, I completely understand the concept of skiing. I have watched this video on a big screen tv at least 6 times. Paltrow is snow shoveling, a term used to control your speed. What I see is Sanderson lost control on a left turn directly behind or at a 45 degree angle, crashing into Paltrow, every skier was going relatively slow, no speed at all. Paltrow needs to hope that at least 2,3,4, of the jury have experience on the slopes. Remember these attorneys don't get paid if they lose, they have a huge pay roll at Paltrows expense. They really need that 7 million from this wealthy lady. This is nothing but a get rich scheme. F-in apportunists
This is not a video of what happened. This is a created animation based on what the lawyers are trying to prove happened. If this was created by Mr. Sanderson, the "video" would be different.
@@michellepergeorelis340 Exactly ... and now try to imagine how the video would have to be changed in order to put blame on Paltrow ? He would have to be down hill in front of her , stopped or going very slowly . Nothing has indicated he did not come from behind ... which even if he was in front of her for about 1 sec ... that is still him being the skier coming from behind in a reckless manner. So then we have to believe everyone in her group was totally blind to Sanderson downhill in front of them for quite a long time 15+ seconds . . . which nothing indicates that since the burden of that proof is upon the plaintiff .
I think he was modestly injured (because of his neglect and blindness) on top of other medical issues. Because of his "issues" he can't accept his physical decline. His LMF (large male friend) pumped him up and he has become obsessed with blaming Paltrow. By this point, he believes it. But he is still wrong, and it won't end well for him.
I heard mentioned that one of his pre-existing conditions was that he had had a stroke. I had a relative who had a stroke and her field of vision was cut in half. Perhaps something like that happened to the plaintiff, not in a major way but left him with a blind spot such that he didn't see Paltrow.
@@ckp2ator389 The guy was already over 70 when this happened and the fact that his wife left him afterward tells you a lot about who he was in the first place
Sanderson was behind up mountain from Paltrow. Ski rules is you yield to skiers in front of you there for case closed... don't need a whole court hearing and a room full of lawyers to figure this out. Bunch of slow people in that room
The fact a courtroom even allows animations to paint a fake narrative in a trial is something you should be questioning it's legality or morality. Not taking it in as a fact!
As much as I do personally believe GP was not at fault in this case, keep in mind this animation was created to portray GP and the instructors recollection of events. Doesn't make it a fact.
i have been skiing at busy resorts for over 50 yrs and this is an open and shut case if Sanderson agrees to this depiction then its legally his fault because he collided with the skier(Paltrow) who was always below him before contact .. thats always the simple rule in resorts as the "downhill skiers always have the right of way" just as in a case when a golfer ahead of you on the golf course were to be hit by your ball from behind then its always the golfers fault who was trying play through the group ahead of them which was obviously unsafe as they hit someone, whether unintentional or not or trying to yell fore as a warning it makes no difference..
If this depiction is correct, it looks like she was blindsided by Sanderson who was making very wide traverses and fast. Talk about trying to hog the whole run! What I don't understand is the timing of Paltrow's bloodcurdling scream before impact. I guess I'll have to see her testimony which I haven't watched yet.
And anyone born before 1953 is born perfect at boating and doesn't need to get a boating license to operate a boat in Washington State... After 1953 nobody has any idea and must take a class and get a license.
HOLLY CRAP.. If there was any doubt, Paltrows lawyer just won this case. He totally out-classed the defenses team. Let me explain: He was able to introduce a totally self-created, self-promoting animated version of the event to the jury. This completely fictional animation will now be burned into the juries mind.. Can't be un-done. It subliminally shows the PLAINTIFF skiing above PALTROW before the crash. THEN he (as if being fair and un-biased) skips forward to the after the impact leaving the juries mind to connect the scenes. LE T ME REITERATE, this "animation" was CREATED by the DEFENSE yet will be equated as video evidence by the jury. AWESOME!! ABSOLUTE GENIUS. Paltrow's legal team knows human psychology, it's flaws, it's biases and played on it perfectly. Just to be honest, I personally think the plaintiff is a fault but even if Paltrow ran into him, he has NO chance against her superb legal team. THIS needs to be a study to be dissected in every law school curriculum.
I believe Gwyneth, because the encounter is so embarrassing, that she wouldn't have made herself describe the details in front of the world, had it not happened that way. I don't know that I could do what she did, even if we're the complete truth. She handled the situation the best way I could imagine anyone doing so, and I think her testimony will potentially have a big impact ...in that future victims coming forward, in spite of how embarrassing it may be, to tell their story.
I agree , the grunting she mentions , sounds like his feeble attempt bump into her to meet /pick her up her and it back fired when she started to swear and shout at him and he realised he was out of his depth , and he had hit her harder than he thought he would
Ok I've never skied a day in my life I've rarely ever seen snow so I know nothing about skiers etiquette , but from looking at these images Paltrow was on one side of the slope all alone and ahead of the man that hit her. It looks like he headed straight towards her and hit her. Yet he is suing her claiming that she was "out of control' ? This makes no sense other than he sees Hollywood movie start and dollar signs. This never should have made it to court except for the fact that we're living in a clown world were you can sue anyone for anything.
Skiers code specifies the skier down the mountain has the right of way. The uphill skier must yield. Anticipation, being situationally aware and skiing in control are the responsibilities of the overtaking skier. This is a money grab for sure based on what has been argued. Physics don’t lie. I’m a former collegiate ski racer and have been skiing for decades all over the USA. It’s very hard for me to see this any way that make GP the at-fault party.
Thank you, David. I don't ski but I came to the same conclusion you did. Obviously Gwyneth was purposely skiing down the right side to stay clear of her kids and the instructors so the kids wouldn't get distracted by her presence. Was she showboating or out of control? Doesn't look that way. However the guy who hit her had to weave his way all the way over to the right side of the slope to hit her.
It actually looks like paltrow might have served around that unnamed woman and might have skied into him. I was looking at this possible scenario by the ski instructor where their backs were showing and it looks like the kids are further uphill from her. It looks like Sanderson is in the lead at that point.
If you are a skier tell me how she was skiing next to her kids that she paid $9600 to get lessons other than to watch her kids. How do you ski and watch your kid that is uphill from you? I have skied my whole life 35 years at the bird and that story is bs
I'm my experience skiers that go carpet to carpet are one of the most dangerous things on the slope, carpet to carpet is also more characteristic of beginners who are more prone of losing control
If this is accurate, he was on the completely opposite side of the slope than she was! It’s almost as if he had to work his way over to her. She was out there by herself and I guess was vulnerable. This makes me believe her even more.
To carve across the entire run like that, you have to ski a lot faster than someone skiing in a less-endangering narrow band. The dude was old, blind, and skiing recklessly fast.
@@OneTequilaTwoTequila OR... he spotted Paltrow and decided he needed a big paycheque and was willing to get hurt in order to make it happen. I think he may just be a greedy bast*rd who will stop at nothing to lie, cheat and steal.
Plot twist: He was a paid assassin sent to murder Paltrow and make it look like an accident. He failed to kill her, so he dragged her through the mud for 7 years. I’m glad she is free from him. She needs to be careful for the rest of her life.
First, Paltrow is in front of him. It is nearly impossible that somehow she rear ended him! That is the whole point of skiing.. you make modest turns from side to side.. that is what she was doing. If anyone was skiing recklessly.. it was this loser. ( Sanderson )
It’s crazy that they have completely opposite stories! This animation makes sense and I believe her she said he almost used her as a slow down buffer but the real impact was when they fell sideways, but idk why he is saying she hit him and they’re complete opposite narratives. I also don’t trust the “witness” who saw it from 40 feet away after they were on the ground saying she was on top of him. A celeb of her fame can’t get away with hitting someone and walking away like nothing happened, I completely believe that he hit her and she yelled and then left once the ski instructor came and said he would handle it since the guy was okay.
And they were in a Meetup. People in Meetup become a group of friends and protect each other. He wasn't credible. There's no way if GP actually collided into someone that she wouldn't take care of it, and avoid as much media coverage as possible. She would have felt awful, paid the medical bills, and checked up on the person. She make not always be likeable like other celebrities, but she's never been evil or reckless. She was with her family that day and being a mom, not out to be reckless. This man has a history of not being very nice and a history that his eyesight is not that great and some previous brain damage. He should be ashamed, but I'm sure he's not.
Listening to his testimony, it is amazing the amount of detail he remembers of the period immediately after the event as well as the eloquency with which he speaks. I struggle to understand him having been unconscious or suffering from a head injury.
@@walterdrinker there are different types of brain injuries- some don’t affect speech, they might affect only your limbs for example. Depends on which part of the brain gets injured
Gwyneth did not cause the accident. You can tell by how that man is skiing that it is his responsibility to be aware of all those skiers in front of him. He was taking huge turns behind her and it is obvious he slammed into her.
It looks like Sanderson skied onto Paltrow's side of the ski run moving into her space. He was the one skiing as if the whole mountain ski run belonged to him only by skiing from the far right to the far left.
@@MissOrchid12 No. This was the injured gu's lawyer's. He came from behind, from the opposite far side. What is his complaint? That she fell on him wrong?
We find out later that the Terry guy said he was fine and was on his feet and everything and then only later when a friend of his said 'that was Gwenyth Paltrow' did he flag down another ski patrol person and said he was hurt. He then also sent a text saying 'I'm famous'. He probably fell again on his own afterwards and now trying to pin that on Paltrow.
@@jacquelynbolden2268 I had to read your comment again… For some reason I connected TS to Taylor Swift, and not the plaintiff Terry S. 😅 That lawyer had me all confused!
Ooops, I did not know that the guy was on the opposite side of Paltrow, he probably wanted to get pass the children in front of him and could not control it really, I mean, ski's have no breaks. But that animation gives the entire thing a complete different perspective. IF this animation is correct Paltrow is clearly innocent.
Looks to me like she was staying on one side predictably. He literally skied all the way over to collide with her. He should've turned earlier instead of going all the way to the edge where she was. If that graphic is even close to what happened, he's a scamming liar.
Case closed. The plaintiff was making large radius turns. I call them GS style turns there fun but your hogging the run when you do them and you better keep a sharp I out for others. My wife holds a tight line and people that do wide carving turns scare her because they kind of seem like bullies taking over the hill. I only do them when I absolutely know I’m in not interfering with others. If there’s a crowd on a section of a run I keep my turns tight to avoid problems like this. This little guy is a bully skier. And the case is definitely a no fault, inherent risk of skiing scenario.
Yes as soon as I saw this animation, I unexpected switched to the side of GP. She should sue him properly on top of her legal fees but unlike the compo sucker she's not here for the money!
When I heard the opening statements, they made sure to call one of the injuries, "a life long brain injury." Then I listened to him keep talking more and more. Now I hear this guy, and the picture of what is going on here is crystal clear. If this was you or me, and this would have never been filed. One side proved their case, and the other is looking for a quick buck, in my opinion. "Life long brain injury". I don't know how they could say something like that with a straight face.
WOW! Great video depicting what happened. And if the plaintiff really was skiing “carpet to carpet” like he said, then he’d be at fault by taking up the entire ski slope. Even as a beginner I was trained not to do that.
When I went skiing, it was almost like everyone just assumed you were going run over or get run over. lol. I must have gone at a good time. Everyone was happy and also understanding of each other. It was for New Years at Crested Butte. Best town ever. I actually considered moving there afterwards. :)
From this graphic it doesn't appear that defendant was anywhere near the unnamed woman, who appears to remain mostly in the center of the slope, so defendant wouldn't have had any need to swerve around her , and the moving graphic never shows that . On the other hand, in the moving graphic the partially right-sided blind plaintiff appears all over the slope, winding back and forth, and crosses the path of the unnamed woman. The lines just show who is who, not necessarily the paths of the skiers. Since plaintiff was weaving back and forth across the entire slope, while defendant stayed to the downhill right , It makes more sense that plaintiff was distracted by both the people on the downhill left side (kids and instructors), and the trajectory of the unnamed woman in the middle , so he didn't even see or notice the defendant until he crashed right into her. If anything , plaintiff skied in a reckless manner.
If it wasn't multimillionaire Gwyneth Paltrow but some ordinary Jane, do you actually think this guy would have even bothered? Its a joke and if he wins this case, I would be outraged if I were her.
And I think that is the very reason this case was even brought to trial...because Paltrow refuses to back down and be taken advantage of. So she's being defiant and making him prove it to everyone. It's the principle for her. Hence, her 1 dollar countersuit (slap in the face).
I used to put up Christmas lights in north county San Diego. You would be AMAZED at what ppl sue other ppl for. I had a client that got sued cause his neighbor said the lights we put up on HIS glass wall was obstructing his “view of the ocean” and they had to pay 6 figures. People are wild
@@celinemara565 He tried to sue for 3.1 million at first and hes not a millionaire. Even if he was, 300k is almost 1/3 of a million... clearly not "nothing" to him... go practice math and get outa the comments.
@@Tehkrit You know that being a "millionaire" doesn't mean you only have 1 million dollars right? It can be anywhere from 1 - 999 million. 300k is less significant as you approach 999 million. Go practice some logic, that'll help you get the math right.
I am a retired lawyer. I know both Sykes and Owens and have been on cases with both of them. This is harder than it looks and takes a lot of preparation to do as well as Owens has done. I don't think that juries like Sykes very much., just my opinion; and Sam Goldstein has testified for Sykes in a lot of cases. Plaintiff's counsel seem to have a lot of money invested in experts.
Message to Gwyneth: This guy is a bona fide nut and he's scamming you. Be humble, have faith and hang in there. I'm not a fan but i had to speak up for what is right. If I can see thru him surely the jury can. Courage!
@not a cat Focus on this topic, Paltrow is no nut! That compo sucking leech is at fault according to the incomplete animation which we can use the imagination to fill in the gaps!
Full run skiers/boarders are the absolute worst. They hardly ever look before turning back across a run for 1 turn. It's like cutting across 4 lanes of highway traffic without looking. Plaintiff is a joke.
I just heard about this case on the news wires and I do not know what the actual issue is. If this is liability suit related to a collision between Sanderson and Paltrow, it should be very clear to anyone watching the animation that Sanderson hit (collided into) Paltrow. If this is what the case is about, it’s a joke
This reminds me of a person who actually driving the speed limit being careful. While another driver driving ridiculous try to get over nearly causing a crash without using a signal light and then they try to sue you saying " YOU HIT ME!" 🤦🏽♀️🤣
He's trying to get money. He said sorry, probably before he knew who she was, and as soon as he did, he thought this might be his only chance to get some money.
Years ago I was playing coed volleyball. An over aggressive guy rammed into me from behind thrusting me forward. I was absolutely blindsided I actually had chest pains from the impact. There was no good reason for this to have happened, and I can honestly say from my own experience, I was angry.
I believe she hit him bc she wasn't hurt badly and if she were hit she should have been hurt. Also good people stay if they are in a accident to check on each other and she left she didn't care.
@@user-ns9ft8cf7b I never stated it was. Have you ever been hit from behind having no warning to brace oneself? Initially my experience was fear and anger. It can be very frightening…..I can understand her initial reaction.
@Emily Heather Why are you assuming that Mr. Sanderson is being honest? Neither he nor Mr. Ramon come across as credible whatsoever. In fact, much of their testimonies make no sense and contradict their own account.
Yes and someone who has memory loss,very articulate and answered the questions without memory loss. He answered every question correctly. I'm confused.🤔🤔 I work with dementia every day. I've yet to see them being able to recall and put everything in the right content, even onset dementia. GP lawyer should be questioning why someone can remember but claims they cant
yeah my feeling is she might have gone more central and terry wasn't expecting it - i think terry was maybe going a bit too fast and it was an unfortunate accident.
Yes, this is the point here. He claimed she was reckless, but they were skiing along the same path for a while, he would have stayed clear away from her if it's the truth, Plus, there would be MANY MORE people bumped into by her or know that she's reckless, since she skies quite regularly! He has way more chance (%) of lying than she does!
it's really messed up this animation was allowed in. Its incredibly prejudicial... it's like johnny depp being allowed to show a short cartoon of Amber Herd having a poo on his bed.
Looking at the comments here, people are coming at this like it’s the actual video… Perhaps this is unintentional, but it shows the danger of this in the sphere of a media frenzy. There is such room for manipulation and distortion here.
Yet when instructor questioned about his supposed memory- which was the animation-not to be confused with a re-enactment, he admitted it was wrong in some areas. This is not a re-enactment, it is a one sided inaccurate representation of what instructor supposedly saw.
You mean testimony. It's called testimony. Substantially similar to his recollection of events. You typed a lot of words there but failed to say anything the title of the video doesn't state.
@@velcro-is-a-rip-off Yes- Not a re-enactment. I get the impression they are attempting to pawn off- this admittedly inaccurate video- as a re-enactment vs a video of his memory- and they still made mistakes. People should make no assumptions re a video of his imagined memory- that he admits contained inaccurate information.
@@mnmkmkm Pawn off? I assume nothing from the video. It is amateurish at best. What *has* convinced me, however, is the totally unconvincing testimony of Sanderson. He's very slippery, but has contradicted himself a number of times while Paltrow's testimony/witnesses have been consistent. Also: No one said the plaintiff couldn't make his own video.
@@BerkshireBitch You are entitled. I vehemently disagree, and I use the concrete incontrovertible evidence of injuries, contemporaneous statements. IN addition plaintiff has a precise linear consistent version of events themselves- which is the meat of the case. Never wavered. He was upset-documented at Paltrow’s lack of remorse. The vital missing link-claimed the defense- when presented , again vindicated and supported Sanderson. I am entitled to my opinion too.
I disagree. She’s going to lose. This is a re enactment based off testimonies. Several. You’re emotionally attached to the plaintiff. Courts don’t go off emotion. This is perponderance of evidence. Meaning since the plaintiff is suing he needs to prove that she’s liable. The plaintiff doesn’t even recount the incidence within an hour time frame. Meaning he within 1 hour changed his story being on the stand. The plaintiff wouldn’t have sued a regular person. It’s clearly a money grab.
Sounds like Partlow was zig-zagging down the fall line in a narrow corridor, Sanderson was making wider-arc turns; but then it sounds like her line cut him off as he was traversing between turns, possibly when he was just about to turn as near the edge of the trail, and he was unable to avoid hitting her. Sanderson might have been looking downhill more than across or slightly up the hill and Partlow was looking downhill but not to her left side. One thing I find interesting is that Christiansen, instructor, says he wasn't paying much attention to the "woman" because she wasn't skiing fast - however in the simulation, the woman is going downhill faster than any of the others and overtook both Partlow and Sanderson, from what I saw. Looks pretty congested to me, esp with skiers doing different turn types. As a former instructor, I would have been watching out for Sanderson doing the wide/traversing turns as well as for the woman who was going downhill fairly quickly and went from behind Partlow to ahead of her. The simulation is very helpful. Also, Christiansen's testimony is helpful, because ski instructors are taught to be very aware of what's happening around them to keep themselves and their students safe.
Please, please keep in mind the Judge's instruction to the Jury that the animation was not evidence, just an visual description of the ski instructors recollection of some skiers on that slope in 2016 when he briefly looked behind him as he was skiing downhill. It only reflects the ski instructor's testimony which one should question for the possibility of bias or accurate recollection from a 2016 scene, which at that time, he apparently didn't think was significant.
@Susana Suzuki - A lot of females were raised to the guilty party in everything. I'm glad that so many of the younger generation speaks up for themselves.
It's really easy to do that kind of animation. This isn't even that good. Anyone who had a class in AutoCad could do it. Even Junior Colleges and Trade schools have classes in this. Wouldn't be super expensive at all.
This trial is so blown out of proportion over a Hollywood actress. If this was your average Joe Schmo tell me you'd milk this nonsensical, bologna trial as you do here??
Notice Gwenyth's testimony said that Sanderson came directly from above her and between her legs!! Impossible for someone going across the hill the way this video shows. Also notice the only one who actually witnessed this -Ramone was not even in the video!! Plus Gwyneth said she did not scream. Quite a few discrepancies in this "simulation".
Great observation! You're so right, IF Sanderson was making these huge turns "carpeting" (as Christensen said he'd observed) then how could Sanderson have come up to GP directly square behind her, when from this version he'd be skiing in on an angle?
Paltrow could be turning, too. She was also making turns. Do you ski? Her version makes sense. His doesn’t. You would have to lose your skis or tear ligaments to be laying spread eagle face down with your skis still on.
Coz the ski instructor did not see the collision, so did any other witness! Even those 2 who bumped into each other did not see the whole scene as well, due to one being neglected (the guy didn't see until he bumped into Paltrow), and Paltrow was hit from behind so she didn't see it either!
My son was snowboarding a month ago and just about the exact same thing happened. The guy careened right into him. They both made sure each other was okay and left it at that. This whole case is ridiculous and such a waste of time.
Ladybugmom,
The problem is she did not stop to check if the guy was ok. She cursed at him and kept skiing.
He ended up with long term physical damage.
@@mananimal3644 people with long term physical damage do not travel the world for three years after the fact.
@@mananimal3644 What trial are you watching?I heard her state that after he hit her from behind, she fell on top of him and ended up on the ground. Doesn't sound like somebody who ran into him and simply carried on skiing without stopping. The animation shared here supports her account. As well, his brain scans that were presented in trial showed that he had a previous brain injury dating back to 2009, nothing showed up on the scans from the recent collision. That doesn't mean he wasn't injured but it certainly doesn't prove it's her fault. And if she cursed at him and went on as you claim, then isn't it more likely he is at fault?
He needed travel money! Lol
@Man Animal
Not checking on someone after they run into you does not constitute grounds for a law suite. Fukwit.
I began skiing as a young child, for approx. 40 yrs. I can't count the amount of time I've been cut off, run into , and accidentally cut off and run into others. I have experienced bumbs, bruises, minor cuts, minor concussions, sprained ankle. If nobody is seriously injured such as becoming a paraplegic, etc., you get up, help the other skier up, dust yourself off and away you go down the hill. Of course I am Canadian🇨🇦 and we are not in the game of sueing others just to get rich over such minor infractions. This sport can be very dangerous for all partaking in it, this is a given, this reality needs to be understood and accepted by all who strap on alpine skis.
Yes. I was shocked by the "ski rule that you exchange info". I was taken out whistler by a guy flailing down a run. He said sorry. I got up, bruised all over, rode the rest of the day
I ski & snowboard. I've been injured multiple times, even broken bones, but it never occurred to me to sue anyone over it. I figure I chose to participate in a dangerous activity, then I need to accept the consequences of my choices. You make that choice to ski at his age with all his preexisting medical issues, that's like 90% odds you are going to get hurt.
After having an accident with someone, I can’t imagine yelling profanities at them instead of asking if they are OK, she is awful and this is absolutely a money grab
He's suing for 300,000 that's not really "rich" money, also considering he was a successful optometrist and skiing there is not cheap. And since she left the scene and didn't help the man who was knocked out that in my book makes her guilty as sin.
@ITSONLYMEWATCHING are you actually following the trial & listening objectively to all the testamony? He actually started out suing for 3.1 million. The judge threw out a large chuck of his claims, knocking it back to 300k. 3.1 million is a huge red flag that's not compensation, that's greed. She did not just take off or leave him unconscious on the ground. The ski patrol was there and assessed him. He told the staff was OK, he got up & skied down the hill. Any normal person would have differed to ski lodge staff & assume they have the training & experience to handle a crash. The staff had her information entered it into their reports & gave it to him a copy. Had the ski patrol told me I could leave & go to my kids, I would have gone just like GP did. Also, Sanderson already tried to sue the ski lodge & failed miserably.
She has won by public opinion (those with common sense). He needs to stay off the slopes. HE IS A HAZARD.
He is because he lost vision in that right eye.
@ejwis1 Yes, he might be a hazard because of his various health problems listed during this hearing, including a bad back, but one-eyed people can legally drive and do it all the time. They adjust. A friend of mine had an eye destroyed as a 4 years old and thereafter had several realistic custom glass eyes produced over the years through his doctor's office. He's now 66 and has never had a car accident. I used to ride to work with him, and have gone on trips with him. He's a better driver than most people I know, including me. Calm, steady, smooth, polite, doesn't take risks. I felt very safe with him. He always held a job and drove to and from work. He was an electronic technician, then a roofer, climbing up and down ladders and on to roofs. He did all the normal things. It's not an unusual situation, and it's entirely legal to drive with one eye. The Mr Sanford in this case seems to be a little frail and have several health problems affecting his physical abilities. I'm not so sure I'd ski if I were him.
Im not a fan of this woman what so ever, but she is innocent and he is shady!!
I am in agreement with you.
Same!!! Not a fan and I can’t stand her actually but more inclined to believe her on this one. The other guy was contradicting his own statements and own deposition. Sketchy!!!!
@@xengzulueta147 Right, and was I hearing there was a go pro but its conveniently missing or something like that? Or did I miss something? And then his friend says he didn't remember his own name, but when T is on stand says when asked he did know his name and responded appropriately. I am just going off my psych experience and behavioral analysis observation. I don't even care about this simulation they doing. Behavioral analysis was all I needed. Simulation wasn't needed, nor should it have been allowed, but whatever.
Why unneeded and why not allowed? All possible evidence can and should be defined as “needed.” I see no problem with this.
@@donaldroberson7659 its simulation of could be situation, not actual video of it. Was not needed for me to make a decision. It is theoretical to me. Not evidence.
Paltrow was skiing with her family, watching her kids learn from their ski instructors. It’s highly unlikely that she was being reckless.
I have run up the back of a car because I was distracted by my children. Children are very distracting to a mother and a mother will usually divert attention to her child if they call….
She admitted her son was on her left and a bit uphill from her. I’ve skied my whole life, no way she was paying attention and why was she skiing on the same run as her children when she paid $9600 to ski with an instructor? She was there to watch her kids period.
@@michelleduncombe9675 absolutely. Well said
Not looking forward is reckless
@@davethompson16 absolutely
All this for a minor ski accident. Human greed at best from plaintiff and litigation lawyers.
Scamdersonnnn 😅
He had 4 broken ribs and concussion, that is not a minor accident! And there wouldn't be "all this" if she had just admitted her fault and payed him out of court.
Skiing is dangerous though. Its kind of go at your own risk.
My thing is if Gwyneth was totally at fault, they probably could have settled out of court and opened up her Hermès wallet. My point being, maybe there is more to this story
@Allison yeager i'm not a betting person but if i was i'd bet money she hit him!
It’s so clear how this man came right at her there’s no way it’s her fault. Can’t beleive this!
Sanderson obviously crashed into Paltrow from behind. He was "always" behind her in the animated trial and he was skiing from "side to side" (all over that run). I am a skier and I have been on ski patrol in Alaska. According to that animated trial the run looks like an easy and wide run. It shows Sanderson skiing as more of a beginner ( less confident - "wide" turns) and Paltrow an intermediate and safe skier (skiing directly down the fall line - "quick/narrow turns").
the animation is from Paltrows team. Sandersons account is that he was down the hill and Paltrow was higher up
@@luxconcept Sanderson said 'she appeared in front of me out of nowhere. This means he couldn't have been downhill from her unless she was skiing uphill and backwards.
person in front has the right of way ski rule she was hit from behind and was rightfully angered team gwyneth
I’m not a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but I’m not a fan of 99.999% of Hollywood actors, but she was the downhill skier and she had the right of way.
Same!!
This is not proof she wasn't the one at fault.
@@AqworldsMew11 I get that. When I had my TBI, I wasn’t traveling all over the world afterwards like this guy did. It’s seems he sent a ton of money, is broke and needs the money to pay off his debts from all his travel he did after having a TBI. Sorry but I don’t buy his story.
@@jcfc8197 I'd believe the one with actual injures and any holes in a story can be explained by the fact that he had a concussion he hit his head when she hit him. Gwyneth has always acted holier-than-thou I believe that she may have done this kind of thing.
He was fine until he learned that her name is Paltrow, everything changed then. The truth will prevail and this animation makes all very clear. Let justice be served!
He was not fine, he had four broken ribs and a concussion! He did not just make that up because its GP!
@@tamitribbiani7907 Maybe not, but he did decide she caused the crash, against common sense.
@@tamitribbiani7907 broken Ribs and he did River Rafting after that. 😂😂😂😂
@VON JOVI Well duh, broken ribs do heal
@@tamitribbiani7907 yeap but you are not going to risk your life again. For doing River Rafting or any extreme sport. The guy is for the money once he found out the Celebrity ha ha ha.
How could she run into him when he was BEHIND her. He was skiing much faster than she was.
yes I noticed that in the video. Very wreckless behavior.
Right .. he was all over the place and she was in her lil zone. I can’t believe the defense seen this video and still continued with trial and embarrass themselves
@@hoftroy2377 thank you for pointing that out..
@@vegas9440agree!!
I believe I may be able to practice law watching clips of this trial 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I did a lot of mock trials. Good attorneys make it seem easy by the way lol. But there’s hours and hours of background knowledge.
😂
it seems like it until u find out going to court is just a minor part of being a lawyer. most of your time is spent on paperwork.
Hopefully NOT based on the Defense 🙄
Who was the unnamed woman? They need to find her and get her testimony as she likely saw what happened.
Good luck it was 7 years ago. 😅
She was a beginner, clearly focused on going slow and staying upright 😅
Although the event happened in 2016, he didn't file his lawsuit until 2019. Many key witnesses won't be found.
its not that serious
@@TheFootyHub101 Do you mean that unknown witness is "not that serious?"
Great witness, very steady testimony and body language. Crappy lawyers 😄
No, Gwynnoth (idk how to spell her name) he’s really good.
He’s too good as if he was paid.
Watching a lot of the trial videos these lawyers are terrible. 🤷♂️🤦♂️
This witness is not credible to me at all
@@yeisica 😂
I've been skiing for 48 years, I completely understand the concept of skiing. I have watched this video on a big screen tv at least 6 times.
Paltrow is snow shoveling, a term used to control your speed.
What I see is Sanderson lost control on a left turn directly behind or at a 45 degree angle, crashing into Paltrow, every skier was going relatively slow, no speed at all.
Paltrow needs to hope that at least 2,3,4, of the jury have experience on the slopes.
Remember these attorneys don't get paid if they lose, they have a huge pay roll at Paltrows expense. They really need that 7 million from this wealthy lady. This is nothing but a get rich scheme. F-in apportunists
This is not a video of what happened. This is a created animation based on what the lawyers are trying to prove happened. If this was created by Mr. Sanderson, the "video" would be different.
Snow shoveling? Don’t you mean snowplowing? This is a very basic technique beginners use, which I have no doubt describes GP’s skill level perfectly.
@@rah938 depends on where your at, but yes! We say that here.
@@michellepergeorelis340 Exactly ... and now try to imagine how the video would have to be changed in order to put blame on Paltrow ?
He would have to be down hill in front of her , stopped or going very slowly .
Nothing has indicated he did not come from behind ... which even if he was in front of her for about 1 sec ... that is still him being the skier coming from behind in a reckless manner.
So then we have to believe everyone in her group was totally blind to Sanderson downhill in front of them for quite a long time 15+ seconds . . . which nothing indicates that since the burden of that proof is upon the plaintiff .
Well said totally agree I think the old due has no retirement money and saw his main chance for a windfall
I think he was modestly injured (because of his neglect and blindness) on top of other medical issues. Because of his "issues" he can't accept his physical decline. His LMF (large male friend) pumped him up and he has become obsessed with blaming Paltrow. By this point, he believes it. But he is still wrong, and it won't end well for him.
I heard mentioned that one of his pre-existing conditions was that he had had a stroke. I had a relative who had a stroke and her field of vision was cut in half. Perhaps something like that happened to the plaintiff, not in a major way but left him with a blind spot such that he didn't see Paltrow.
@@ckp2ator389 The guy was already over 70 when this happened and the fact that his wife left him afterward tells you a lot about who he was in the first place
100% agreed
@@raidzeromatt Not supporting this lying opportunist, but he was 69 at the time of the incident.
He’s a small little man…. I’m so many ways. How much you bet he drives a sports car???🤦🏼♀️
Sanderson was behind up mountain from Paltrow. Ski rules is you yield to skiers in front of you there for case closed... don't need a whole court hearing and a room full of lawyers to figure this out. Bunch of slow people in that room
Correction the animation that GP lawyer says he was up hill. I can make an animation of me winning lottery but that don’t make it so.
So, you think all animations are the truth? Heads up: The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are not real but are out of someone's imagination.
The fact a courtroom even allows animations to paint a fake narrative in a trial is something you should be questioning it's legality or morality. Not taking it in as a fact!
@Arturo Rivera i agree, how his attorney didnt object to that is beyond me. Also, the ski instructor didnt even see it, so he is just taking her word
As much as I do personally believe GP was not at fault in this case, keep in mind this animation was created to portray GP and the instructors recollection of events.
Doesn't make it a fact.
i have been skiing at busy resorts for over 50 yrs and this is an open and shut case if Sanderson agrees to this depiction then its legally his fault because he collided with the skier(Paltrow) who was always below him before contact .. thats always the simple rule in resorts as the "downhill skiers always have the right of way" just as in a case when a golfer ahead of you on the golf course were to be hit by your ball from behind then its always the golfers fault who was trying play through the group ahead of them which was obviously unsafe as they hit someone, whether unintentional or not or trying to yell fore as a warning it makes no difference..
agree. this was a lot different than what i pictured in my head.
Sounds similar to skydiving, the lower person in the sky has the right of way. You can't go up but you can slow down and move.
But he doesn’t agree to this - this is just GP side of what happened which is not the same as his story:
If this depiction is correct, it looks like she was blindsided by Sanderson who was making very wide traverses and fast. Talk about trying to hog the whole run! What I don't understand is the timing of Paltrow's bloodcurdling scream before impact. I guess I'll have to see her testimony which I haven't watched yet.
And anyone born before 1953 is born perfect at boating and doesn't need to get a boating license to operate a boat in Washington State... After 1953 nobody has any idea and must take a class and get a license.
That diagram is very helpful. His right eye is one he can't see from, so he probably didn't even see her & hit her.
HOLLY CRAP.. If there was any doubt, Paltrows lawyer just won this case. He totally out-classed the defenses team. Let me explain: He was able to introduce a totally self-created, self-promoting animated version of the event to the jury. This completely fictional animation will now be burned into the juries mind.. Can't be un-done. It subliminally shows the PLAINTIFF skiing above PALTROW before the crash. THEN he (as if being fair and un-biased) skips forward to the after the impact leaving the juries mind to connect the scenes. LE T ME REITERATE, this "animation" was CREATED by the DEFENSE yet will be equated as video evidence by the jury. AWESOME!! ABSOLUTE GENIUS. Paltrow's legal team knows human psychology, it's flaws, it's biases and played on it perfectly. Just to be honest, I personally think the plaintiff is a fault but even if Paltrow ran into him, he has NO chance against her superb legal team. THIS needs to be a study to be dissected in every law school curriculum.
I believe Gwyneth, because the encounter is so embarrassing, that she wouldn't have made herself describe the details in front of the world, had it not happened that way. I don't know that I could do what she did, even if we're the complete truth. She handled the situation the best way I could imagine anyone doing so, and I think her testimony will potentially have a big impact ...in that future victims coming forward, in spite of how embarrassing it may be, to tell their story.
Embarrassing??!...What on earth are you talking about?🤷♀️
I agree , the grunting she mentions , sounds like his feeble attempt bump into her to meet /pick her up her and it back fired when she started to swear and shout at him and he realised he was out of his depth , and he had hit her harder than he thought he would
Gold digger
A woman that markets vagina candles and espouses to pump hers full of ozone doesn't have much hope of ever being embarrassed.
@@kayling8353agree
Old dude wants money cause she is famous. Family crying because they know if they lose the lawyer fees will destroy them…
I agree, Kemosabe😂
He’s 76 prob has no retirement money he’s an opportunist
Ok I've never skied a day in my life I've rarely ever seen snow so I know nothing about skiers etiquette , but from looking at these images Paltrow was on one side of the slope all alone and ahead of the man that hit her. It looks like he headed straight towards her and hit her. Yet he is suing her claiming that she was "out of control' ? This makes no sense other than he sees Hollywood movie start and dollar signs. This never should have made it to court except for the fact that we're living in a clown world were you can sue anyone for anything.
this is not the actual event but rather an animation of the ski instructors version of what happened...still a he said/she said Imho
I know nothing about skiing. I didn't even know there were so many rules on skiing ..
both side's stories conflict with each other tho. so it just depends on who u believe more.
@@cerebrumexcrement Doctors maybe can tell if he was hit from behind by his injuries.
Skiers code specifies the skier down the mountain has the right of way. The uphill skier must yield. Anticipation, being situationally aware and skiing in control are the responsibilities of the overtaking skier. This is a money grab for sure based on what has been argued. Physics don’t lie. I’m a former collegiate ski racer and have been skiing for decades all over the USA. It’s very hard for me to see this any way that make GP the at-fault party.
Thank you, David. I don't ski but I came to the same conclusion you did. Obviously Gwyneth was purposely skiing down the right side to stay clear of her kids and the instructors so the kids wouldn't get distracted by her presence. Was she showboating or out of control? Doesn't look that way. However the guy who hit her had to weave his way all the way over to the right side of the slope to hit her.
It actually looks like paltrow might have served around that unnamed woman and might have skied into him. I was looking at this possible scenario by the ski instructor where their backs were showing and it looks like the kids are further uphill from her. It looks like Sanderson is in the lead at that point.
If you are a skier tell me how she was skiing next to her kids that she paid $9600 to get lessons other than to watch her kids. How do you ski and watch your kid that is uphill from you? I have skied my whole life 35 years at the bird and that story is bs
💯 being sued because she’s GP. If it was me, it wouldn’t have been.
If you believe the Defendant's cartoon.
Make sure you're skiing with 360 degree go-pro's in case someone who is unstable wants to accuse you of crashing into them.
Why just when skiing? Where the thing 24 - 7 because inevitably someone will try to say that you were at fault...
@@dc6233 Thats the future I suppose.. cameras everywhere. Eyeglasses, earrings.. nipple piercings...
This is all just ridiculous. So many accidents happen on the ski fields. This is one of them.
I'm my experience skiers that go carpet to carpet are one of the most dangerous things on the slope, carpet to carpet is also more characteristic of beginners who are more prone of losing control
If this is accurate, he was on the completely opposite side of the slope than she was! It’s almost as if he had to work his way over to her. She was out there by herself and I guess was vulnerable. This makes me believe her even more.
To carve across the entire run like that, you have to ski a lot faster than someone skiing in a less-endangering narrow band. The dude was old, blind, and skiing recklessly fast.
@@OneTequilaTwoTequila OR... he spotted Paltrow and decided he needed a big paycheque and was willing to get hurt in order to make it happen. I think he may just be a greedy bast*rd who will stop at nothing to lie, cheat and steal.
Plot twist: He was a paid assassin sent to murder Paltrow and make it look like an accident. He failed to kill her, so he dragged her through the mud for 7 years. I’m glad she is free from him. She needs to be careful for the rest of her life.
First, Paltrow is in front of him. It is nearly impossible that somehow she rear ended him! That is the whole point of skiing.. you make modest turns from side to side.. that is what she was doing. If anyone was skiing recklessly.. it was this loser. ( Sanderson )
It’s crazy that they have completely opposite stories! This animation makes sense and I believe her she said he almost used her as a slow down buffer but the real impact was when they fell sideways, but idk why he is saying she hit him and they’re complete opposite narratives. I also don’t trust the “witness” who saw it from 40 feet away after they were on the ground saying she was on top of him. A celeb of her fame can’t get away with hitting someone and walking away like nothing happened, I completely believe that he hit her and she yelled and then left once the ski instructor came and said he would handle it since the guy was okay.
And they were in a Meetup. People in Meetup become a group of friends and protect each other. He wasn't credible. There's no way if GP actually collided into someone that she wouldn't take care of it, and avoid as much media coverage as possible. She would have felt awful, paid the medical bills, and checked up on the person. She make not always be likeable like other celebrities, but she's never been evil or reckless. She was with her family that day and being a mom, not out to be reckless. This man has a history of not being very nice and a history that his eyesight is not that great and some previous brain damage. He should be ashamed, but I'm sure he's not.
it's because h'es blind in his right eye! he can't see her!
100%
In Paltrow’s testimony she testified that she was on top.This is to say she wasn’t lying.
Celebs do indeed get away with far worse. I'm not sure who to believe. I'll leave that to the judge and jury.
It's very curious that Sanderson travelled around the world for 3 years after this & then decided to sue for damages?
Listening to his testimony, it is amazing the amount of detail he remembers of the period immediately after the event as well as the eloquency with which he speaks. I struggle to understand him having been unconscious or suffering from a head injury.
For someone with a "life long brain injury", he's incredibly articulate on top of his 3 years of travel
@@DN-kz7xl because head injuries don’t always cause instantaneous unconsciousness. If there’s a slow bleed it can take hours or days
@@walterdrinker there are different types of brain injuries- some don’t affect speech, they might affect only your limbs for example. Depends on which part of the brain gets injured
@@nataliecohen5581 Yes, subdural can take time, but at least we would have heard in testimony that he suffered a subdural hematoma.
Gwyneth did not cause the accident. You can tell by how that man is skiing that it is his responsibility to be aware of all those skiers in front of him. He was taking huge turns behind her and it is obvious he slammed into her.
You realize this video is all made up, right?
It looks like Sanderson skied onto Paltrow's side of the ski run moving into her space. He was the one skiing as if the whole mountain ski run belonged to him only by skiing from the far right to the far left.
Paltrow is innocent and this video proves it
Lol sure as if you were there. The animation is made by them not actual evidence
@@lucasb4595 This isn't fact!!! This is made by GP's lawyers!
@@Aboma2012 - If the animation was made per witness testimony, doesn't that make it evidence?
@@MissOrchid12 No. This was the injured gu's lawyer's. He came from behind, from the opposite far side. What is his complaint? That she fell on him wrong?
We find out later that the Terry guy said he was fine and was on his feet and everything and then only later when a friend of his said 'that was Gwenyth Paltrow' did he flag down another ski patrol person and said he was hurt. He then also sent a text saying 'I'm famous'. He probably fell again on his own afterwards and now trying to pin that on Paltrow.
Ski Patrol who took him down on toboggan says no one told her he lost consciousness...not TS or his buddy Ramone.
4 broken ribs and a concussion. Doesn’t sound like he was OK.
@@jacquelynbolden2268 I had to read your comment again… For some reason I connected TS to Taylor Swift, and not the plaintiff Terry S. 😅 That lawyer had me all confused!
@@kenotube3160 He fell again afterwards.
@@phototristan when was it said he fell again?
At this point, HE OWES HER.
Ooops, I did not know that the guy was on the opposite side of Paltrow, he probably wanted to get pass the children in front of him and could not control it really, I mean, ski's have no breaks. But that animation gives the entire thing a complete different perspective. IF this animation is correct Paltrow is clearly innocent.
Looks to me like she was staying on one side predictably. He literally skied all the way over to collide with her. He should've turned earlier instead of going all the way to the edge where she was. If that graphic is even close to what happened, he's a scamming liar.
lol it looked like they were labelling the names of trees, it took me a second to realize those are everyones names.
i have no idea what happened here but i do hope i never get dementia it would be impossible to defend yourself even if you were in the right.
Case closed. The plaintiff was making large radius turns. I call them GS style turns there fun but your hogging the run when you do them and you better keep a sharp I out for others. My wife holds a tight line and people that do wide carving turns scare her because they kind of seem like bullies taking over the hill. I only do them when I absolutely know I’m in not interfering with others. If there’s a crowd on a section of a run I keep my turns tight to avoid problems like this. This little guy is a bully skier. And the case is definitely a no fault, inherent risk of skiing scenario.
Yes as soon as I saw this animation, I unexpected switched to the side of GP. She should sue him properly on top of her legal fees but unlike the compo sucker she's not here for the money!
😂😂😂...Going on the notion that the first person to say sorry would be the guilty party...if they were Canadian this would be a problem...!!!😎👍🇨🇦
I've been known to apologize within my car , if someone cuts me off. 🇨🇦
lol good one
yeah. sometimes i have to tell people to stop saying sorry to me and remind them they didnt murder my child.
Two years Six Months later: "Mr. ski patroller, would you say Gweneth's heart was beating normally, abnormally, faster than normal or arythmatically?"
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube 😂😂😂
When I heard the opening statements, they made sure to call one of the injuries, "a life long brain injury." Then I listened to him keep talking more and more. Now I hear this guy, and the picture of what is going on here is crystal clear. If this was you or me, and this would have never been filed. One side proved their case, and the other is looking for a quick buck, in my opinion. "Life long brain injury". I don't know how they could say something like that with a straight face.
His CLAIMED life-long brain injury is his narcissism, since the day he was born 😂 narcissism ain't no injury, it's birth defection 😂 He's lying!
77azureblue77 You got it right!
April fools day comes early this year.....
WOW! Great video depicting what happened. And if the plaintiff really was skiing “carpet to carpet” like he said, then he’d be at fault by taking up the entire ski slope. Even as a beginner I was trained not to do that.
What is carpet to carpet?
AANIMATION...HE DIDN'T SEE WHAT HAPPENED
@@Katrrey it’s when you ski across the entire slope doing your turns at both ends of the slope. Watch the video, it shows what he’s talking about.
@@polynesia8733 didn’t you watch the video? The defense shows where he’s at on the slope.
Depiction of what she said not what he said
This lawsuit is bogus.
When I went skiing, it was almost like everyone just assumed you were going run over or get run over. lol. I must have gone at a good time. Everyone was happy and also understanding of each other. It was for New Years at Crested Butte. Best town ever. I actually considered moving there afterwards. :)
If I needed an attorney to fight for me, and I I had moneey honnneee.. I would hire Gwyneth’s. He’s so precise and confident. Lawyer be lawyering! 😎
She can afford the better lawyer, that’s why she won! He who has the gold wins the trial
@@nataliecohen5581that is not true. Did you see all the pics after his supposed tbi cruising around the world? Cmon lets make sense
She was minding her own business, that guy was coming from the back
Great graphic! Well done defence !
From this graphic it doesn't appear that defendant was anywhere near the unnamed woman, who appears to remain mostly in the center of the slope, so defendant wouldn't have had any need to swerve around her , and the moving graphic never shows that . On the other hand, in the moving graphic the partially right-sided blind plaintiff appears all over the slope, winding back and forth, and crosses the path of the unnamed woman. The lines just show who is who, not necessarily the paths of the skiers. Since plaintiff was weaving back and forth across the entire slope, while defendant stayed to the downhill right , It makes more sense that plaintiff was distracted by both the people on the downhill left side (kids and instructors), and the trajectory of the unnamed woman in the middle , so he didn't even see or notice the defendant until he crashed right into her. If anything , plaintiff skied in a reckless manner.
The lawyer has actually the point……. Who normally gets mad? Who says sorry?
a classic case of a jerk hitting an actor and wanting a payout.
If it wasn't multimillionaire Gwyneth Paltrow but some ordinary Jane, do you actually think this guy would have even bothered? Its a joke and if he wins this case, I would be outraged if I were her.
And I think that is the very reason this case was even brought to trial...because Paltrow refuses to back down and be taken advantage of. So she's being defiant and making him prove it to everyone. It's the principle for her. Hence, her 1 dollar countersuit (slap in the face).
I used to put up Christmas lights in north county San Diego. You would be AMAZED at what ppl sue other ppl for. I had a client that got sued cause his neighbor said the lights we put up on HIS glass wall was obstructing his “view of the ocean” and they had to pay 6 figures. People are wild
You guys realize he is a millionaire too right? He is suing for 300k which is nothing for her and him.
@@celinemara565 He tried to sue for 3.1 million at first and hes not a millionaire. Even if he was, 300k is almost 1/3 of a million... clearly not "nothing" to him... go practice math and get outa the comments.
@@Tehkrit You know that being a "millionaire" doesn't mean you only have 1 million dollars right? It can be anywhere from 1 - 999 million. 300k is less significant as you approach 999 million. Go practice some logic, that'll help you get the math right.
My toxic trait is thinking i can easily become a lawyer because I learnt so much from watching trials online 💀
I am a retired lawyer. I know both Sykes and Owens and have been on cases with both of them. This is harder than it looks and takes a lot of preparation to do as well as Owens has done. I don't think that juries like Sykes very much., just my opinion; and Sam Goldstein has testified for Sykes in a lot of cases. Plaintiff's counsel seem to have a lot of money invested in experts.
Obviously not seen the ronnie o'neal or darrell brooks trial.....but to be fair o'neal did dodge the death penalty.
😂
Feel to be the victim isn't the same as being the victim.
Isn’t Sanderson blind in right eye? GP is on his right…
Message to Gwyneth: This guy is a bona fide nut and he's scamming you. Be humble, have faith and hang in there. I'm not a fan but i had to speak up for what is right. If I can see thru him surely the jury can. Courage!
@not a cat Focus on this topic, Paltrow is no nut! That compo sucking leech is at fault according to the incomplete animation which we can use the imagination to fill in the gaps!
This is biased, constructed by GP's lawyers - not fact.
@@jettser17UK you do know animation is made by her team based on how they remember it
Paltrow used to make her assistants dry the shower floors before she uses them, she's the bona fide nut...
She can’t see this message love
He thought she was going to settle out of court…he thought wrong!!!
Full run skiers/boarders are the absolute worst. They hardly ever look before turning back across a run for 1 turn. It's like cutting across 4 lanes of highway traffic without looking. Plaintiff is a joke.
That guy saw Pepper Pots on the ski slopes and wanted himself some Ironman money!!!
I just heard about this case on the news wires and I do not know what the actual issue is. If this is liability suit related to a collision between Sanderson and Paltrow, it should be very clear to anyone watching the animation that Sanderson hit (collided into) Paltrow. If this is what the case is about, it’s a joke
This reminds me of a person who actually driving the speed limit being careful. While another driver driving ridiculous try to get over nearly causing a crash without using a signal light and then they try to sue you saying " YOU HIT ME!" 🤦🏽♀️🤣
He's trying to get money. He said sorry, probably before he knew who she was, and as soon as he did, he thought this might be his only chance to get some money.
If this guy sustained the many injuries he claims; he had no business being on the slopes. He should be in a retirement home watching TV!
Jeez, after seeing this video, it's hard to believe people still blame Gwenyth... but they still will because it sounds edgy to bash a rich celebrity.
Ski's leave a trail.....if the animation follows the ski trails.....this guy purposefully ran into Paltrow.
Years ago I was playing coed volleyball. An over aggressive guy rammed into me from behind thrusting me forward. I was absolutely blindsided I actually had chest pains from the impact. There was no good reason for this to have happened, and I can honestly say from my own experience, I was angry.
You should of sued 🤔
I believe she hit him bc she wasn't hurt badly and if she were hit she should have been hurt. Also good people stay if they are in a accident to check on each other and she left she didn't care.
@@user-ns9ft8cf7b I never stated it was. Have you ever been hit from behind having no warning to brace oneself? Initially my experience was fear and anger. It can be very frightening…..I can understand her initial reaction.
I'm not sure what your experience has anything to do with this case.
@Emily Heather Why are you assuming that Mr. Sanderson is being honest? Neither he nor Mr. Ramon come across as credible whatsoever. In fact, much of their testimonies make no sense and contradict their own account.
She stayed on her lane while he zigzagged his way down behind her.. How is she at fault? No thanks. Bye.
You don't need to be reckless for an accident to occur.
If both of you are paying attention neither of you is gonna hti the other.
That dude lawyer was star struck and didn't do crap now this guy no games
The guy knew Paltrow was on the slopes, he targeted her no doubt. He even said it was cool to have an accident with a celeb. I think he planned it.
Yes and someone who has memory loss,very articulate and answered the questions without memory loss.
He answered every question correctly.
I'm confused.🤔🤔
I work with dementia every day.
I've yet to see them being able to recall and put everything in the right content, even onset dementia.
GP lawyer should be questioning why someone can remember but claims they cant
@@jeanhorn8891 he did not that is why he sur and he knew
That’s bonkers. No way he could have known, and being old and fragile, risk getting injured or worse.
@@kenotube3160 LOL, not that fragile if he's taking wide turns on the slopes! He was behind her on the slope according to that video.
He's a doctor. If he was a penniless Paparazzi photographer then I'd believe it.
I believed her from the start.. I think this man saw a celebrity and saw an opportunity
Its quite clear that Terry Sanderson was making large zig zags down the ski slope and probably tried to avoid that lady when he crossed paths with GP.
yeah my feeling is she might have gone more central and terry wasn't expecting it - i think terry was maybe going a bit too fast and it was an unfortunate accident.
Or he was trying to hit her as he stated he kept eyes on her the entire time.
Pro skiers do not ski across the hill, they make short turns to control their skis.
@Fender Blue I'm guessing you've never heard of giant slalom, super g, or downhill...
Its an animation, not a video taken at the scene
Every video that comes out is better than the last one. This trial is super entertaining and ridick!!
Gweneth kept on one side being careful. While the other skiing with wide radius end to end..
According to her account
@@Hgh_hhb according to the witness
Ok so, if she was truly "out of control" on that slope, wouldn't have a lot of other people ran into her the same way he did? I say... SUSPISH!
Yes, this is the point here. He claimed she was reckless, but they were skiing along the same path for a while, he would have stayed clear away from her if it's the truth, Plus, there would be MANY MORE people bumped into by her or know that she's reckless, since she skies quite regularly!
He has way more chance (%) of lying than she does!
it's really messed up this animation was allowed in. Its incredibly prejudicial...
it's like johnny depp being allowed to show a short cartoon of Amber Herd having a poo on his bed.
I would give anything to see Johnny Depp being talked to from ‘Mr. Rottenborne!’ 😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂
@youuuuuuuuuuutube it's not necessarily what the witness saw. The defense's witness has denied many aspects of the animation.
Looking at the comments here, people are coming at this like it’s the actual video… Perhaps this is unintentional, but it shows the danger of this in the sphere of a media frenzy. There is such room for manipulation and distortion here.
Oh those cartoons exist! LOL
Animation fooled many people in the comments. It is too suggestive, shouldn’t have been allowed in court. It’s hard to unsee.
Im certain that this was a freak accident caused by both parties being a little distracted. Silly to go to court.
just drop the case and give her the $1 you owe her.
😂 ikr I think he doesn't care, he just wants to become famous, and he got his 10 mins of fame, so.. 😂
If she wasn't rich nobody would have skipped a beat
This is a money grab for that Sanderson guy. He doesn’t seem genuine.
Yet when instructor questioned about his supposed memory- which was the animation-not to be confused with a re-enactment, he admitted it was wrong in some areas. This is not a re-enactment, it is a one sided inaccurate representation of what instructor supposedly saw.
You mean testimony. It's called testimony. Substantially similar to his recollection of events. You typed a lot of words there but failed to say anything the title of the video doesn't state.
@@velcro-is-a-rip-off Yes- Not a re-enactment. I get the impression they are attempting to pawn off- this admittedly inaccurate video- as a re-enactment vs a video of his memory- and they still made mistakes. People should make no assumptions re a video of his imagined memory- that he admits contained inaccurate information.
@@mnmkmkm Pawn off? I assume nothing from the video. It is amateurish at best. What *has* convinced me, however, is the totally unconvincing testimony of Sanderson. He's very slippery, but has contradicted himself a number of times while Paltrow's testimony/witnesses have been consistent. Also: No one said the plaintiff couldn't make his own video.
@@BerkshireBitch You are entitled. I vehemently disagree, and I use the concrete incontrovertible evidence of injuries, contemporaneous statements. IN addition plaintiff has a precise linear consistent version of events themselves- which is the meat of the case. Never wavered. He was upset-documented at Paltrow’s lack of remorse. The vital missing link-claimed the defense- when presented , again vindicated and supported Sanderson. I am entitled to my opinion too.
I disagree. She’s going to lose. This is a re enactment based off testimonies. Several. You’re emotionally attached to the plaintiff. Courts don’t go off emotion. This is perponderance of evidence. Meaning since the plaintiff is suing he needs to prove that she’s liable. The plaintiff doesn’t even recount the incidence within an hour time frame. Meaning he within 1 hour changed his story being on the stand. The plaintiff wouldn’t have sued a regular person. It’s clearly a money grab.
"Yes, Gwyneth was upset." "Let's be more precise, was Gwyneth upset?"
Why don't they show the actual collision part?!
Exactly. This proves nothing.
The witness did not see the actual collision, so there's no animation of it. This is just to show who was where before the accident.
This was not a recording. It was a visual. A recreation of what the witness saw.
Sounds like Partlow was zig-zagging down the fall line in a narrow corridor, Sanderson was making wider-arc turns; but then it sounds like her line cut him off as he was traversing between turns, possibly when he was just about to turn as near the edge of the trail, and he was unable to avoid hitting her. Sanderson might have been looking downhill more than across or slightly up the hill and Partlow was looking downhill but not to her left side. One thing I find interesting is that Christiansen, instructor, says he wasn't paying much attention to the "woman" because she wasn't skiing fast - however in the simulation, the woman is going downhill faster than any of the others and overtook both Partlow and Sanderson, from what I saw. Looks pretty congested to me, esp with skiers doing different turn types. As a former instructor, I would have been watching out for Sanderson doing the wide/traversing turns as well as for the woman who was going downhill fairly quickly and went from behind Partlow to ahead of her. The simulation is very helpful. Also, Christiansen's testimony is helpful, because ski instructors are taught to be very aware of what's happening around them to keep themselves and their students safe.
Is this really happening , imagine explaining this to aliens
This isn’t a video, it’s an animation showing what their clients account of events is. It’s not a video of the actual incident.
Please, please keep in mind the Judge's instruction to the Jury that the animation was not evidence, just an visual description of the ski instructors recollection of some skiers on that slope in 2016 when he briefly looked behind him as he was skiing downhill. It only reflects the ski instructor's testimony which one should question for the possibility of bias or accurate recollection from a 2016 scene, which at that time, he apparently didn't think was significant.
Sometimes I say sorry out of instinct when it not even my fault.
@Susana Suzuki - A lot of females were raised to the guilty party in everything. I'm glad that so many of the younger generation speaks up for themselves.
Must be nice to have the resources to come up with an "animation" of the crash. That you say is was happened.
It's really easy to do that kind of animation. This isn't even that good. Anyone who had a class in AutoCad could do it. Even Junior Colleges and Trade schools have classes in this. Wouldn't be super expensive at all.
He is a retired eye doctor. With modest investing, easily a multi millionaire.
@Kurt Kaster - They are fairly common in automobile accidents.
I love the fact that Gweneth's lawyer sounds a lot like John Malkovich. Everytime I close my eyes and herar him I see Mr Malkovich.
This trial is so blown out of proportion over a Hollywood actress. If this was your average Joe Schmo tell me you'd milk this nonsensical, bologna trial as you do here??
This comedy show will cost the retired eye doctor hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Notice Gwenyth's testimony said that Sanderson came directly from above her and between her legs!! Impossible for someone going across the hill the way this video shows. Also notice the only one who actually witnessed this -Ramone was not even in the video!! Plus Gwyneth said she did not scream. Quite a few discrepancies in this "simulation".
Great observation! You're so right, IF Sanderson was making these huge turns "carpeting" (as Christensen said he'd observed) then how could Sanderson have come up to GP directly square behind her, when from this version he'd be skiing in on an angle?
yeah. that part doesnt make sense. i need visuals.
Ramone IS represented in the animation. He's yellow.
Paltrow could be turning, too. She was also making turns. Do you ski? Her version makes sense. His doesn’t. You would have to lose your skis or tear ligaments to be laying spread eagle face down with your skis still on.
Honey badger, Ramona is not yellow. That is oaks. Oaks is apples instructor.
Get Ramon’s testimony, case closed. Lock Gwendlin up
Sorry, I can't stand quit the Paltrow Person. But that dude who's trying to extort money out of her is a ridiculous piece of s***.
They collided. Most likely the man was ski'ing faster and collided with Gwyneth. This shouldn't be a lawsuit.
Why did they omit the actual collision?
Because nobody saw it
This is just for theatrics
Because it is a representation of what the ski instructor witnessed.
Coz the ski instructor did not see the collision, so did any other witness! Even those 2 who bumped into each other did not see the whole scene as well, due to one being neglected (the guy didn't see until he bumped into Paltrow), and Paltrow was hit from behind so she didn't see it either!
What an absolute waste of everyone's time and money.