Gwyneth Paltrow and the skiing incident

[BringCathyBack]

Why is everything about suing these days?
He’s saying she crashed into him whilst being distracted by her kids. So it was an accident then? It’s not like she ploughed into him on purpose or crashed into him whilst drunk or high … it was an accident

She’s saying he crashed into her by accident and is counter suing him.

AIBU to think this whole suing culture for genuine accidents needs to stop?

That's my thinking too. GP has got the money to settle and make it go away but she hasn't. She is countersuing for lawyer costs and $1. She is only in that court room because of the principal.
So many celebrities will settle cases out of court to save face but on this she is standing firm. I believe her.

Paltrow also noted that she “has no witnesses who saw the collision.” Not her ski instructor or any other one.

What's your obsession with giggling? Does every woman you know giggle constantly? What a strange thing to fixate on when talking to another woman about a basket bumping them. We must be on different planets.

From my watching of it, each side claim they have a witness whi saw the whole incident.

Plaintiff- they have Ramone. He has testified and says he saw it all.

Defence - thet have a ski instructor. He hasn't testified yet.
We don't know what he is going to say, but reports are that he will say he saw it all.

Both sides are saying the same thing: my witness saw everything and your witness didn't see it all.

That was an aggressive response from her too.

Your standards are different from mine. That's ok, we'll obviously not see eye to eye on this.

Enjoy your evening.

It just involves force, Nevie.

I mean FFS what is she on?

https://apple.news/AVl-_-ynJTuOkEmNRBsjywQ

Indeed but there’s a ski instructor who was witness to some of the events testifying next week.

Whether it is the same ski instructor whom Sanderson originally included in his law suit that was thrown out I don’t know.

Because you are the one who has talked about making HIM feel better.

You’re like those men who tell women to smile.

He claims to have seen it all but he seems to have been some distance away and was not seen by GP at the scene.

Ramone I mean.

Maybe. He’s due to testify next week, so we'll hear what he says.

There were 2 ski instructors,
one that next that was with her son. To her left, a little bit up
the other was with her daughter, further down

It could be one saw it all, but the other was a distance away so didn't see it all.
Maybe that's the confusion?

We shall find out next week 😁

at 43.05 G talks about there being no other witnesses who saw the accident - only the guy she doesn't believe.

Oh sorry. Just seen this.

Our posts on this thread, dont seem to be meshing very well 😁 I'm so sorry

Yeah, Ramon. The plaintiffs witness. He was an interesting one.

He was a distance away and is the plaintiffs friend.

He (Craig) has already testified.

Xpost! We’re back on track.

You're right, she did say that.

I could gave sworn her lawyer said in opening statements thet they have a witness who saw it all.

I've just been waiting to see all the witnesses

😁

We need to sync, somehow 😂

She is going to lose the case.

Your brain works differently to mine.

I have a lot of experience with skiing (and other sports) and completely understand that, even at split second moments, your mind works 1000% miles an hour.

What she's saying is very true.

Autonomic nerve responses are faster than conscious thinking as they bypass the cerebral cortex. You literally cannot think faster than your nervous system responding to a physical threat.
Whatever you think.

She didn’t say she can ‘think faster than your nervous system responding to a physical threat’ though.

She's not suggesting it was sexual, just saying it was a quick thought. You're neglecting to remember that after the initial impact they continued this way for a few good seconds. You may have been skiing but you haven't spent your life in the public eye.

Accident or not, if your actions caused someone else injury, you're responsible to make them whole. Just because your negligence was due to being distracted by your kids (how is that even possible when you have an entire staff raising your kids for you) doesn't mean you aren't culpable.

Looking for a huge pay day is the problem, but wanted to get covered for lost work, bills beyond what insurance covers etc is not unreasonable.

And no matter what, the person up hill is ALWAYS at fault. So she's 100% at fault here.

We don't know who was up hill. That's what the trial is for.

He says she was up hill.
She says he was up hill.

The jury will decide. Or they might decide neither of them were up hill oe to blame and dont award anybody anything.