PARK CITY, Utah — The man suing Gwyneth Paltrow over a 2016 snowboarding collision at one of the vital upscale resorts in North America is predicted to take the stand Monday because the intently watched trial goes into its second week.
Attorneys stated Friday that retired optometrist Terry Sanderson, 76, would probably testify first on Monday, earlier than his attorneys relaxation and hand the Utah courtroom over to Paltrow’s protection group to make their case. Paltrow’s attorneys are anticipated to name her two youngsters — Moses and Apple — and a ski teacher who was current the day of the collision.
Sanderson is suing Paltrow for greater than $300,000, claiming she skied recklessly into him from behind on a newbie ski slope, breaking 4 of his ribs and inflicting head trauma that manifested as post-concussion syndrome after the crash. Paltrow has countersued for $1 and legal professional charges, alleging Sanderson was at fault and veered into her from behind.
After Paltrow testified Friday that the collision started when Sanderson’s skis zoomed between her legs, attorneys will probably query Sanderson on his recollections. Craig Ramon, the only real eyewitness of the crash, testified that he heard a loud scream and noticed Paltrow hit Sanderson, inflicting his skis to fly up into the air earlier than he plummeted down in a “spread eagle” place.
Attorneys will in all probability ask Sanderson in regards to the post-concussion signs that medical specialists and his medical doctors testified to final week. Paltrow’s attorneys are additionally anticipated to ask about his references to the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer’s fame and whether or not the lawsuit quantities to an try to use it.
Although the courtroom in Park City, Utah, was removed from full all through the primary week of the trial, the case has emerged as probably the most intently watched movie star trial since Johnny Depp took Amber Heard to court docket nearly a yr in the past. Clips of legal professional outbursts and Paltrow’s Friday testimony have been reduce and circulated broadly on social media, whereas observers have debated the motivations on each side to maintain the extended authorized battle seven years after the collision.
The amount of cash at stake for each side pales compared to the standard authorized prices of a multiyear lawsuit, non-public safety element and professional witness-heavy trial.
Source: www.bostonherald.com”