Prosecuted for her involvement in a skiing accident at a Utah resort in 2016, American actress Gwyneth Paltrow won her case on Thursday, avoiding paying the $ 3.3 million in damages sought by the charge. The jury of a court in this state in the western United States unanimously found that Gwyneth Paltrow, famous in particular for her role as Pepper Potts in the Iron Man films, was not responsible for the accident with retired medical professional, Terry Sanderson.
The actress obtained the symbolic dollar she claimed, the jury judging, after three hours of deliberation, that it was on the contrary Mr. Sanderson who had caused the accident. The 76-year-old Mr Sanderson, an optometrist, claimed the collision at an upscale Rocky Mountain resort broke four of his ribs and caused lasting psychological damage, launching a lawsuit in 2019 against Ms Paltrow.
During their final argument before a court in Utah, Mr. Sanderson’s lawyers had argued that their client should be compensated for the irreversible brain damage he suffered and which affects his quality of life. They were asking the court to award his client $33 for each hour of the day from the accident until Terry Sanderson’s death, which they estimated could take place in 10 years. The calculation works out to be “$3,276,000 for the 17 years Terry has to deal with this irreversible brain damage.” Without success.
At the heart of the case, the question was to know which skier struck the other. According to the plaintiff, Gwyneth Paltrow ran into him while skiing in a “dangerous” manner, before fleeing, leaving him unconscious. The actress claims on the contrary that it was Terry Sanderson who hit her in the back. Her attorney says she “wasn’t going fast” and got scared when Mr. Sanderson appeared behind her. “He hit her. He hurt her,” the actress’ attorney, Stephen Owens, said Thursday, “and he asked her for $3 million afterwards, just for fun. It is not fair “.
The trial, which lasted more than a week, saw specific details about Mr. Sanderson’s health, including pre-existing conditions, exposed. Some members of his family also testified to describe a man with a difficult character, even before the accident. Early in the case, Stephen Owens claimed the optometrist was “obsessed” with the complaint and that the case was based on “false allegations”.
