If I am on the jury, would take a hell of a lot convincing to side with the plaintiff on this one.

You put some snow skis on and start going down a slope, you are assuming some risk of getting hurt. Whether losing balance or colliding with a tree or other person.

Plus doing that at age…like 65 this guy was?

Better have a hell of a lot of strong irrefutable evidence of negligence/irresponsible skiing behavior by the defendent.

This! I'm 2/3 his age and acknowledge I'm voluntarily taking the risk of I go sliding down a mountain on skis.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If I am on the jury, would take a hell of a lot convincing to side with the plaintiff on this one.

You put some snow skis on and start going down a slope, you are assuming some risk of getting hurt. Whether losing balance or colliding with a tree or other person.

Plus doing that at age…like 65 this guy was?

Better have a hell of a lot of strong irrefutable evidence of negligence/irresponsible skiing behavior by the defendent.

---

He was 69. Blind in his right eye*, cataract in his left. Prostate cancer, heart issues, pre-existing neurological conditions in his brain functions.

The animation of the reenactment, Sanderson was making very large GS turns, meaning grand slalom, crossing across most of the run. Paltrow was on right side, making slow small radius turns. Right before the collision, Sanderson was on skier's left side and then turned over to his right, his blind side during his GS turn. So when he told Eric, the ski instructor, that "she just appeared in front of me," that actually squares with his limited vision and he didn't see her until right before the collision as he was making his turn back to the left. Lack of vision in one eye also means depth perception is altered, if not completely gone.

*The blindness in his right eye was a symptom of a stroke he suffered back in 2009.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This! I'm 2/3 his age and acknowledge I'm voluntarily taking the risk of I go sliding down a mountain on skis.

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This! I'm 2/3 his age and acknowledge I'm voluntarily taking the risk of I go sliding down a mountain on skis.

---

Plus it is always written on the back of every lift pass. Reverse Pottery Barn Rule. You bought it? And then "bought it"? Not our problem.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If I am on the jury, would take a hell of a lot convincing to side with the plaintiff on this one.

You put some snow skis on and start going down a slope, you are assuming some risk of getting hurt. Whether losing balance or colliding with a tree or other person.

Plus doing that at age…like 65 this guy was?

Better have a hell of a lot of strong irrefutable evidence of negligence/irresponsible skiing behavior by the defendent.

---

He was 69. Blind in his right eye*, cataract in his left. Prostate cancer, heart issues, pre-existing neurological conditions in his brain functions.

The animation of the reenactment, Sanderson was making very large GS turns, meaning grand slalom, crossing across most of the run. Paltrow was on right side, making slow small radius turns. Right before the collision, Sanderson was on skier's left side and then turned over to his right, his blind side during his GS turn. So when he told Eric, the ski instructor, that "she just appeared in front of me," that actually squares with his limited vision and he didn't see her until right before the collision as he was making his turn back to the left. Lack of vision in one eye also means depth perception is altered, if not completely gone.

*The blindness in his right eye was a symptom of a stroke he suffered back in 2009.

---

Well, if I am on the jury that is all I needed to hear! Sorry the guy got hurt but end of story. Let's stop wasting everyone's time and can I go home now?

Quote:

---

Well, if I am on the jury that is all I needed to hear! Sorry the guy got hurt but end of story. Let's stop wasting everyone's time and can I go home now?

---

If Paltrow had better lawyers, (thinking these folks were hired by an insurance company) this case would have settled for a nominal amount during the period of time when summary judgments were pending.

Never been a Paltrow fan at all. In fact, the only movie of hers that comes to mind is Shallow Hal. I know she was in Shakespeare in Love but have never watched it.

But this plaintiff is too far out over his skis (pun intended) on this lawsuit. Just not enough real evidence. And he waited until just days before the SOL ran out to file suit, three years later.

To sympathize with the plaintiff's case, I would need to hear evidence that for example… there were eye-witnesses who heard her yell 'Yippee! Watch me nail this old guy!'

Then after the collision, she got up, screamed 'Got Him!', did a jubilant fist pump, and went on her merry way.

A story along those lines is where I could maybe start to see the plaintiff had a case.

A great movie with Paltrow in it that I highly recommend is The Talented Mr. Ripley also with Jude Law, Matt Damon, Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Probably my favorite movie that has her in it. If you like a dark character study drama (watch Matt Damon slowly turn into a pretty evil person) with a great script and excellent acting, set in scenic Italy locations, that movie might fit the bill.

Thanks! I'll take a look. Had no idea she was even in that movie. Dont like Damon, nor Jude Law but did like Phillip Seymour Hoffman. He was a great actor. My two favorites of his were Charlie Wilson's War and Pirate Radio.

Please tell me someone snuck in a "whats in the box?" Reference in this trial

Sea Speed said:

---

Please tell me someone snuck in a "whats in the box?" Reference in this trial

---

Watch the trial and find out.

Sea Speed said:

---

Please tell me someone snuck in a "whats in the box?" Reference in this trial

---

That very same prop was recycled for "Contagion".

Why would I watch an entire trial in hopes of seeing a single reference, about which I was obviously joking, when it would surely appear on YouTube after the fact?

Sea Speed said:

---

Why would I watch an entire trial in hopes of seeing a single reference, about which I was obviously joking, when it would surely appear on YouTube after the fact?

---

Lazy?

Not my job to clip this trial for your momentary edification about obscure references to movies.

LOL.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Why would I watch an entire trial in hopes of seeing a single reference, about which I was obviously joking, when it would surely appear on YouTube after the fact?

---

Lazy?

Not my job to clip this trial for your momentary edification about obscure references to movies.

LOL.

---

I have absolutely no idea how you perceived that I implied it was your job to "clip this trial for my momentary edification", but seeing as you have 95% of the posts in this thread, maybe you think everything in it must go through you.

Quote:

---

I have absolutely no idea how you perceived that I implied it was your job to "clip this trial for my momentary edification", but seeing as you have 95% of the posts in this thread, maybe you think everything in it must go through you.

---

LOL. Not watching the trial? Don't click on the thread.

Pretty simple.

Sea Speed said:

---

Please tell me someone snuck in a "whats in the box?" Reference in this trial

---

Which box are you referring to?

This should be the final day of defense witnesses. Plaintiff's counsel has said they intend to recall Dr. Boehm the Voldemort looking guy with the bright green background whose testimony at trial was taped and played in court as their only rebuttal witness. That might happen today or first thing tomorrow. Unknown if he will be in court or via zoom.

This being a civil case, the judge has put time limits on both sides in the case and he wants the jury to have the case after the lunch break tomorrow, no later.

These arguments for directed verdict are interesting. Plaintiff still has a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to post-accident behavior? Zero evidence presented of this. They are trying to say he was "frightened" by the event and has psychological damage. Somehow they are trying to argue failure to render aid and failure to give name address. Judge doesn't seem to be buying it.

Reminder: He was attended to quickly, said he was OK, then refused further medical treatment after going to the clinic.

Summary:

Plaintiff: Well she didn't give her information to the guy she collided with.
Judge: She gave it to the employees of the park like she was supposed to.
Plaintiff: Yeah...but...uhhh

They are trying to say her not giving her personal contact information directly to the plaintiff caused him emotional distress and further damage. Oof.

Not a Bot said:

---

These arguments for directed verdict are interesting. Plaintiff still has a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to post-accident behavior? Zero evidence presented of this. They are trying to say he was "frightened" by the event and has psychological damage. Somehow they are trying to argue failure to render aid and failure to give name address. Judge doesn't seem to be buying it.

Reminder: He was attended to quickly, said he was OK, then refused further medical treatment after going to the clinic.

---

The law favors the defense here. Her name and contact information was known by the Christianson, Deer Valley employee. That fulfilled whatever duty she may have had. There is not negligence after the impact due solely to that.

And all of this talk about Sanderson's emotional problems go more towards negligent infliction of emotional distress which has already been dismissed.

Judge denies directed verdict on general negligence claim

Judge grants directed verdict on negligently failing to exchange information (contributing to emotional distress, supposedly)

Judge denies directed verdict on duty to render aid saying there may still be some disputed facts for the jury

Dr. Black, neurological radiologist who reviewed all of Sanderson's brain scans.

Wait, so he looked at MRI scans from prior to the accident and he already had the damage allegedly caused by the accident.

So none of plainfiff's medical experts reviewed Sanderson's 2009 MRI after his stroke and now we know why. The "damage" was there 7 years before the incident. This has always been a BS case.

Interesting, Dr. Black practiced with plaintiff's expert Dr. Gibby years go.

Attorney Owens is driving me insane.

Another doctor, neurologist, Robert Hesh. Interned at John Hopkins. Has both a MD and PhD.

I despise this plaintiff attorney. The self-righteous ambulance chaser acting as if he's doing the Lord's work.

Bite me.

Not a Bot said:

---

I despise this plaintiff attorney. The self-righteous ambulance chaser acting as if he's doing the Lord's work.

Bite me.

---

Both of the lead counsels are in love with their cases. Emotionally invested. Owens for the defense has the better evidence based upon laws of negligence as it pertains to this incident.

It's the emotional manipulation and playing a character for the jury that frustrates me. The lines like "so you expect the good people of Summit County on the jury to..." and the completely fake indignation rub me the wrong way. He's pretending to be angry to put on a big show.

Not a Bot said:

---

It's the emotional manipulation and playing a character for the jury that frustrates me. The lines like "so you expect the good people of Summit County on the jury to..." and the completely fake indignation rub me the wrong way. He's pretending to be angry to put on a big show.

---

Oh I'm sure he's mad because his case is falling apart. It is clear that Sanderson has more mental than actual biological neurological issues.

Even their own expert, Dr. Goldstein said that. More psychological than physical.

And now he's acting like a 76 year old man with a prior history of stroke and other issues is going to function the same way he did in his 40s and he's doing so with righteous indignation.

Not a Bot said:

---

And now he's acting like a 76 year old man with a prior history of stroke and other issues is going to function the same way he did in his 40s and he's doing so with righteous indignation.

---

Yeah. This is probably not going over well with the jury, though.