Gwyneth Paltrow originally, but only briefly, thought her 2016 skiing accident with a retired optometrist might have been a sexual assault, the actress testified in a Utah court late Friday afternoon. -noon.
Kristin Van Orman, attorney for plaintiff Terry Sanderson, asked the Oscar-winning defendant about her recollection of the incident on the direct review mid-slopes – going through Paltrow’s 2020 deposition on a objection overruled.
“I was confused at first,” said the defendant, recalling the accident described in her deposition. “And I didn’t know exactly what was going on. It’s a very strange thing to happen on a ski slope.
Van Orman then read Paltrow’s deposition directly, quoting it: “I didn’t know if it was an intentional assault of a sexual nature.”
The witness reported that these were his words.
“Was he grinding and pushing or something?” Van Orman asked. “Or just the noises?” What made you think it was a sexual assault? »
Paltrow replied that the idea of sexual assault was “a quick thought that came to mind when I was trying to reconcile what was going on. I was skiing and two skis came between my skis, forcing my legs apart, and there was a body pressing against me and there was a very strange growl.
More Law&Crime coverage: Gwyneth Paltrow’s ski accident trial will likely be anything but simple, say legal experts
The actress went on to say that her mind was “going very, very fast” trying to figure out and make sense of what was going on.
“Is this a practical joke?” Paltrow called back. “Is someone doing something very evil? It’s really, really strange.
The plaintiff’s attorney then reread the deposition: “I think you said, ‘I didn’t know if it was an accident, but he was moaning and growling in a very disturbing way.'”
Paltrow agreed, adding, “Yeah, there was kind of a moan coming out of his mouth.”
The attorney and witness then went through a few more lines in the deposition regarding the immediate impact and aftermath.
In the end, Paltrow and Van Orman agreed there was no sexual assault.
The “Proof” actress’ direct examination was often controversial Friday in Park City.
The actress has repeatedly denied accusations that she was the cause of the crash or otherwise lied in her deposition or on the stand.
This latest allegation sparked a series of objections that ultimately led Third District Court Judge Kent Holmberg to seek a stay after Paltrow’s infuriated team called a bench meeting.
Out of the presence of the jurors, during the break called to challenge this line of questioning, Van Orman asked for a chance to bring up these alleged instances of impeachment evidence — particularly regarding Paltrow’s alleged clumsiness and “proneness to accident”. At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney testified that Paltrow often lied under oath.
Almost as quickly, however, Van Orman reiterated her complaint and apologized. Paltrow quietly accepted the apology.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘I beg your pardon’: Gwyneth Paltrow’s attorney calls himself an ‘a-‘ and apologizes to plaintiff’s daughter in court
Sanderson claims that Paltrow’s negligence on the beginner slopes at Deer Valley Resort caused him such severe brain damage that his personality and demeanor changed after the accident. He plans to ask jurors for some $3 million in damages. During her testimony on Friday afternoon, Paltrow repeatedly emphasized that she believed Sanderson caused the crash by skiing directly into her back. She’s asking for $1 and attorney’s fees.
Watch some of the day’s back and forth below:
Do you have a tip we should know? [email protected]
- Alicia Roman (NBC 5) Wiki Biography, nationality, kids, husband, salary
- Is Miguel Leon Tyson, Mike Tyson’s Real son?
- Emily Elizabeth In Bedroom Bikini Is ‘The Perfect Woman’
- Republican Debate Viewership Dips: Second Event Draws Only 9.5 Million Audience | Wayne Dupree
- Meet Helen Willink, Ex-SEAL Jocko Willink’s Wife