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?

I haven't been following it super closely...I had heard secondhand I guess that her being up hill was an established fact.

Ah OK.

No, not an established fact, that's the purpose of this civil trial.

First the Jury have to decide who was up hill and caused the accident.
Second , the Jury then have to decide if there was any injury and how much to award.

Potentially, they could say they were both 50/50 responsible and everyone walks away with nothing.

G said yesterday they were traversing the slope .

Where theres blame, theres a claim.

It's not an opinion, it's based on my experience. Happy to agree to disagree here though, your brain must work a little differently. Which is okay, we're all different.

The autonomic nervous system doesn’t require thought. It regulates physiological processes. It reacts before we process actual thoughts. Breathing for example is part of the autonomic system in humans. Humans automatically breathe and it isn’t possible to decide not to breathe and doe as we don’t control our autonomic system. Dolphins otoh do and can effectively kill themselves in this way. Humans are not dolphins and everybody’s bodies react in the same way.

*and die

I've been skiing since the 1970s and can honestly say I have never been involved in a collision. I have, however, had a couple of very nasty falls and can definitely just remember lying in the snow in a profound state of shock, wondering what on earth just happened.

In a collision, that sense of confusion would be understandable from the person that was hit. You'd assume the person who made contact would be more aware of what had happened - but that would only apply if they were paying attention.

This is why for me, the only explanation that makes sense is that they were both skiing in the same direction on the traverse (across the slope) with Gwyneth slightly above but parallel to the other skiier. She was looking over her shoulder towards her children or otherwise distracted and suddenly they collided. In this scenario, both would feel shocked/confused and not immediately aware of what had happened.

I'm not sure you can know she'll lose.

Not unless juries make their decision before hearing all the evidence and base it solely on their pre-trial opinion of the people involved, and their interpretation what facial expressions mean in the court room.

Why would you invent a scenario that’s not based on either GP or TS’s testimony?

@Mirabai

It is based on both of their testimonies. Obviously, the truth is somewhere in between. Assuming you are a capable skier, it is very difficult to crash into anyone on a relatively quiet slope - unless looking away/distracted.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gwyneth-paltrow-everything-you-need-to-know-about-her-ski-crash-trial-mhqcln0hl

And your scenario has no basis in her testimony and not much reference to TS’s either.

@mirabai The whole point is that the nature collision is disputed, keep up!

It wasnt a relatively quiet slope.

GP testimony was it wasn't crowded either.
But it was busy - She said something like medium busy.

We havent heard from TS yet.

It’s not me who needs to keep up. There are two versions both clearly stated in the Times article and your version bears no relation to either.

There are two versions both clearly stated in the Times article and your version bears no relation to either.

In which respect?

Sorry, cba. Read them for yourself.

I have had someone ski into me. What you do is toy speak to the other person. You don't just ski off and leave them lying on the ground. That's sociopathic

Sorry, cba. Read them for yourself.

Ha, thought as much!

It’s not my job to stand over you and ensure you read an article properly. There are plenty of other articles and news sources all over the internet which cover the same ground. Very easy therefore for you to identify where your narrative diverges from both versions.

Very easy therefore for you to identify where your narrative diverges from both versions.

So very easy that you are completely incapable of pointing them out?

The nature of the collision is in dispute on both sides (hence the court case, doh!) so a version that diverges from two disputed accounts is neither here nor there. I am merely positing one possible explanation of what may have happened based on my own experience.

It's so obvious what has happened here. The smug look on Paltrow's face says more than so-called "real evidence" ever could. I think she deserves at least 5 years in the LA county slammer. Hopefully she isn't allowed to wriggle out of it like so many wealthy celebrities seem to.

I love a saltire/piss take post. Well done 😁

@blitheringblackberries this is the second time @Mirabai has used this come back - she did the same to me. It's because she can't answer your response.

This posting style is very reminiscent of another bolshy poster - she would also use this approach.