 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Whole thing an object lesson in making sure that the only way of getting "justice" in a skiing accident is to avoid being in an accident at all. Frankly the whole case was such a shitshow we've no way of knowing what really went down but we can see that stardust and spending money on imaginary videos and character assasinating the plaintiff worked effectively. |
Blimy, that's a very quick jump from "we've no way of knowing what really went down" to effectivly "Paltrow bought the verdict"!
1. I'm guessing none of us attended court each day in the public gallery so won't have seen all the evidence as presented to the jury, just the edited version of events in news stories. The jurors will have seen all the evidence though and seem to have come to a very quick, unanimous verdict - which kind of suggests that in the round they were able to work out what really wentt down (on the balance of probability).
2. When you're trying to sue someone with no 3rd party witnesses but have GoPro footage of the event it REALLY doesn't help your case if you 'loose' it. I think your average juror would have raised as high an eyebrow at that one as at being told a phone had been dropped off a North Sea ferry...
3. Part of his case was that he was knocked out on the slopes and she just skied off...but if I remember correctly from the news coverage she was skiing with 2 ski instructors, who I'd assume have the same duty of care as European ones if they whitenss an accident/injury on the slopes. And in evidence didn't at least one of them check on the plaintiff and stay with them until the medical pisteurs arrived on scene and took over?
Yes Paltrow is rich enough to buy the best defense team but that also makes her a target for ambulance chasers looking to make a quick buck. Personally I wonder if he ended up owing so much from his first, failed $3 million case that he had no choice but to double down and hope Paltrow would just settle a $300,000 case to make it go away, on the ground he could only go bankrupt once...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Well in this case I was skiing straight down the the person diagonally skied into the back of me.
|
How did they hit you if you were the downhill skier and going faster?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@morganski, They weren't going in the exact same direction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Ruswit wrote: |
| @morganski, They weren't going in the exact same direction? |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
But they didn't though did they. They were in front of you How could they have skied into the back of you whilst being on top of the front of your skis ?
|
who said they were? I think you've imagined that, are you Gwen Paltrow's expert witness? |
Err...
| davidof wrote: |
Well in this case I was skiing straight down the the person diagonally skied into the back of me.
I would suggest that, irrespective of the rules, if you are traversing from edge to edge on a slope you need a bit of situational awareness if you want to avoid getting hurt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Mjit, She didn't have a single witness that saw what happened yet despite his witness they made him out to be a money grabbing pervert who was completely at fault. I'd say that's effective defence spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ruswit wrote: |
| @morganski, They weren't going in the exact same direction? |
They were both heading to the same point on the piste though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weren't his witnesses all family/friends though, so hardly independent? Certainly they don't seem to have convinced the jurors their testimony was believable/trustworthy.
And making him out to be money grabbing (I think the pervert thing was just the media taking a statement by Paltrow out of context to make a better story and was clarified as such in court by Paltrow's team) - well they are the defence, so casting doubt on the honesty/reliability/credibility of the plaintiff/prosecution case is the definition of their job! And if he wasn't actually injured and just launched the case to make a quick buck (as the jury decided was the case) he IS money grabbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Mjit wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Whole thing an object lesson in making sure that the only way of getting "justice" in a skiing accident is to avoid being in an accident at all. Frankly the whole case was such a shitshow we've no way of knowing what really went down but we can see that stardust and spending money on imaginary videos and character assasinating the plaintiff worked effectively. |
Blimy, that's a very quick jump from "we've no way of knowing what really went down" to effectivly "Paltrow bought the verdict"!
1. I'm guessing none of us attended court each day in the public gallery so won't have seen all the evidence as presented to the jury, just the edited version of events in news stories. The jurors will have seen all the evidence though and seem to have come to a very quick, unanimous verdict - which kind of suggests that in the round they were able to work out what really wentt down (on the balance of probability).
2. When you're trying to sue someone with no 3rd party witnesses but have GoPro footage of the event it REALLY doesn't help your case if you 'loose' it. I think your average juror would have raised as high an eyebrow at that one as at being told a phone had been dropped off a North Sea ferry...
3. Part of his case was that he was knocked out on the slopes and she just skied off...but if I remember correctly from the news coverage she was skiing with 2 ski instructors, who I'd assume have the same duty of care as European ones if they whitenss an accident/injury on the slopes. And in evidence didn't at least one of them check on the plaintiff and stay with them until the medical pisteurs arrived on scene and took over?
Yes Paltrow is rich enough to buy the best defense team but that also makes her a target for ambulance chasers looking to make a quick buck. Personally I wonder if he ended up owing so much from his first, failed $3 million case that he had no choice but to double down and hope Paltrow would just settle a $300,000 case to make it go away, on the ground he could only go bankrupt once... |
This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
OK ...
now that it is over ... just think how this "skiing" incident is so far removed from anything that you or me would ever experience ...
Deer Valley ($$$)
Private Instructor ($$$)
Dentist ($$$)
Celebrity ($$$)
Lawyers ($$$)
and we are so talking about this ... why, should I say ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Cheapski, was there a dentist involved in this? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that GP could have just made this all go away for a paltry (to her)$300,000 but she refused to do that and instead went through all the hassle and potential cost of a court case...to me that indicates three things
1. She was absolutely convinced that she was in the right (even if her attitude overall was a bit off)
2. She has some principles.
3. She has the budget
Friends of ours were taken all the way to the High Court on a totally fabricated civil case by a deranged, but very rich, neighbour.
Our friends had 1 and 2 above, but they just could not afford to continue, the nutter is just so rich and he and his lawyers made it clear they would go on ad infinitum regardless of cost.
My friends gave up.
The case was widely reported in the news, and no I'm not linking it...the rich guy is so mad and litigious, that he would immediately go after me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
But they didn't though did they. They were in front of you How could they have skied into the back of you whilst being on top of the front of your skis ?
|
who said they were? I think you've imagined that, are you Gwen Paltrow's expert witness? |
I did. That's how I described a hypothetical accident. It's quite clear from my earlier post. Then you said someone you in front of you would be deemed to have skied into the back of you, so probably not worth discussing if that's your view of ski accidents. I've made my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| @Cheapski, was there a dentist involved in this? |
Sure if anyone on TGR has ever commented on the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@albob, does the musical feature a jade egg? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Alastair Pink, !!!!!?? (let's hope not..)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
