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?

She might have lots of money but I guess also gets regular chancers trying to get money out of her for one spurious reason or another. It doesn’t mean you just hand cash over every time someone with a sob story comes along, or even that you have some sort of moral duty to do so.

🤣 thanks @minou123👍

I am thoroughly enjoying the memes coming from the trial.

I am team guy. With all her money she should just pay up. Why didnt she make sure he was ok.

Amazing! I’ve stolen that 😂😂

Who ever was actually downhill has to be so annoyed that the other is lying. Someone is perjuring themselves on the stand. Just a he said she said.

skiing is so dangerous and it’s amazing that we used to ski without helmets even!

i do think a 69/70 year old is pushing his luck skiing - I’m in my 50s and we all seem to be getting more injured than ever before. I’m thinking our reactions aren’t quite as good. Though prob slower and more cautious than 20s. Bit like driving!

maybe people need tests befor being on certain slopes

@Sirius3030 - what, the ONLY independent witness, a ski instructor who therefore knows the rules of the piste, whose first words were “you just took out Gwyneth Paltrow”? Is that the clear evidence she went into him?

Years ago my Mum had an accident at work that was due to company negligence.
She was the owners PA and he sacked the person responsible but also told her to sue the company too. She was reluctant but he insisted as it was covered by insurance. She handled all the paperwork herself for the company so she sort of sued herself really

I don't think who got injured is meaningful. He's older, less healthy and less fit therefore more prone to injuries in any fall.

The part that seems inconsistent to me is that his ‘eye witnesses’ says he heard a scream and looked over and then saw GP crash into Terry, surely the scream would happen as the crash occurred and not before..this makes me doubt what he is saying

I heard that the medical report says his injuries were consistent with being hit from behind. Does anyone know if that's true? Because if it is, then she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

The medical report was done by his mate, the radiographer.

I find it interesting that the daughter emailed her father saying she can't believe it was all caught on GoPro. where's the footage?

This all rests on who was the downhill skier. The rules are that the uphill skier is responsible as the downhill has right of way.

(Ie his medical report - not an independent one. I don’t know whether there is an independent one or if GP’s expert got to examine him)

this thread very good at showing why one never wants to end up in front of a jury!

It’s America the insurance company force you to sue to recoup the medical costs

GP was with an instructor, surely they’re the only independent person here who can give evidence unless other skiers that were in the vicinity stopped and left their details.

There’s absolutely no way that an instructor would ski past anyone who was unconscious on a piste, whether or not they or their group had been directly involved in the incident. GP has says that her instructor swapped details - that doesn’t indicate that he was unconscious! I don’t believe that part of his story.

One person skiing into another doesn’t indicate who will sustain the injury. I was skied into from behind last year. I got away with a stiff shoulder for a few days, the person who skied into me needed assistance to get off the mountain having injured one of their knees. We waited until the pisteurs arrived and gave contact details but never heard any more.

She seriously injured him and just left him there. Vile.

Btw, in that famous McDonald's hot coffee case, there was a real problem on their side.

McDonald's intentionally served about 10degrees hotter coffee than was industry standard and "for drinking" temperature.

They expected people to order more food while waiting for the coffee to cool down.
There were aware that this decision will harm people, it was already harming people and they considered cheaper to pay settlements than reduce the serving temperature. With the famous old lady, they tried to get away without paying, hoping she won't be able to fight back. She did.

I can't comment on all countries, but in many countries you absolutely can sue in these circumstances. Including England. If you could ski in England, obvs.

I'm American, so I'll take a stab at this one:
The culture of suing in the U.S. is mostly due to an overabundance of lawyers. So I imagine that the skier whom Paltrow accidentally bumped into on the slopes thought, "Oh! a famous and enormously wealthy person... let me get a lawyer and make a few extra bucks off this....!" though this fellow is probably not poor himself, since skiing a rather expensive sport, and if you're at the same resort as some rich celebrity, you're probably doing ok financially (and not worrying about the cost of healthcare, as another poster posited!)

But I digress.... Once someone threatens to sue her, Paltrow just calls her legal team and they take over.... The team decides to nip this bogus lawsuit in the bud by counter-suing, otherwise every time the woman accidentally brushes up against someone, they'll be trying to sue, as sometimes is easier for the really wealthy party to settle a lawsuit (i.e., just pay $$), and people know this. So the guy found a lawyer who saw this as a quick way to make an extra $200-300K, which is pocket change to her.

Also: Americans are insane.... so that's also a factor....

One thing that is confusing is that she says that Apple and her instructor Eric were already downhill from her and that Moses and his instructor Kerry were uphill from her on the other side of the run. Then they crashed and she got up and left and said that Eric checked on the guy and gave her information etc. But Eric was already farther down the hill and would have needed to walk back up to check on the guy. Kerry who was uphill from her would have been able to ski down to him much faster than Eric could come back up the hill.

The two ski instructors will testify next week. I am curious as to what they say happened. Apparently the ski lessons for the four kids were $8000 USD! That seems exhorbitantly expensive for that ski hill and normal ski instructor rates, even for a week.

When skiing the uphill skier does have more of the burden to avoid people in front of them, but the downhill skiers also have a responsibility to behave reasonably, like stopping on the side of a run in a place that is easily visible from uphill etc. Its a dangerous sport that needs everyone to pay attention to themselves and their surroundings and no one is immune from risk while participating whether up hill or down hill. Skiing with an existing brain injury seems to me to be a very poor choice.

From my experience it is men who tend to go/crash into people, I have rarely seen a woman do this. Men think it is funny, women are basically not keen on injuring themselves. Every person I know who has been hit from behind, skied over etc has been by a man.