Gwyneth Paltrow news: Juror speaks out for first time after verdict in Goop mogul ski crash lawsuit

Actor and Goop founder won a civil lawsuit regarding 2016 ski collision involving retired optometrist Terry Sanderson

Shae Sanderson accuses Gwyneth Paltrow of ‘ignoring’ her father in mountain ski crash

A juror in Gwyneth Paltrow’s ski collision trial spoke out for the first time after the Goop mogul won the high-profile case.

Samantha Imrie told ABC’s Good Morning America that the panel was not influenced by Paltrow’s celebrity when they sided with the Hollywood star.

“The whole thing was a little shocking to me. We did have a unanimous decision. I think it’s important the public doesn’t just think this was a win because Gwyneth is a celebrity,” she said. “It’s based on the evidence and the law.”

On Thursday, jurors returned a verdict in favour of Paltrow, finding that Terry Sanderson, 76, was “100 per cent” at fault over a ski collision at the luxury Deer Valley Resort near Park City, Utah, on 26 February 2016.

Retired optometrist Mr Sanderson, 76, had sued Paltrow claiming she crashed into him leaving him with a permanent traumatic brain injury. Paltrow claimed it was Mr Sanderson who crashed into her.

Jurors heard two weeks of complex testimony by neurology and brain injury experts for both sides. Eyewitnesses, Deer Valley employees, Ms Paltrow’s children Apple and Moses, and Mr Sanderson’s daughters also testified under oath.

During closing arguments, Mr Sanderson’s attorney Lawrence Buhler argued that for 16 hours every day, Mr Sanderson is forced to live with the consequences of his brain injury. Mr Bhuler randomly suggested that jurors considered granting his client $33 per every hour he’s suffered from cognitive decline since the accident seven years ago, and for the ten years he is estimated to live.

Meanwhile, Paltrow’s defence attorney Steven Owens told the court that his client was a “punching bag” for Mr Sanderson and his family throughout the proceedings. “He hurt her and then he asked $3m for the pleasure of it,” Mr Owens said.

After two hours and 20 minutes of deliberation, the jurors sided with Paltrow and awarded her a symbolic $1.

In the aftermath, Paltrow said: “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity. I am pleased with the outcome and I appreciate all of the hard work of Judge Holmberg and the jury, and thank them for their thoughtfulness in handling this case.”

For his part, Mr Sanderson insisted that he stands by his version of events.

Asked what he plans to do now, he joked “maybe Disneyland!” His lawyer Kristin van Orman said he was a “very nice man” who is “suffering”.

Key points

• Gwyneth Paltrow not at fault for ski collision, jury finds
• Gwyneth Paltrow’s attorney shares statement
• Gwyneth Paltrow’s daughter had never seen her so ‘shaken up’ after ski crash
• Gwyneth Paltrow mocked over ‘half a day skiiing’ line

[3 April 2023 09:00 · Andrea Blanco]

‘Based on evidence’: Gwyneth Paltrow juror says Goop mogul didn’t win because she’s a celebrity

Samantha Imrie served as juror 11 during the trial, telling Good Morning America that the testimony of snow science expert Dr Irving Scher swayed the jury.

He argued that Ms Paltrow’s story of what happened on the slopes of the Deer Valley Resort in 2016 is “consistent with the laws of physics” while the version of events put forward by retired eye doctor Terry Sanderson, 76, didn’t add up.

The Independent’s Gustaf Kilander:

[3 April 2023 13:00 · Andrea Blanco]

VOICES: The Gwyneth Paltrow verdict was justified – but there’s another issue at play here

“The verdict is in: after nine days – or more accurately seven years – of back and forth Gwyneth Paltrow has been found not at fault for a skiing collision in 2016,” Lucy Gray writes for The Independent.

“Mind you, this was all way back in 2016, so despite the meme-worthy trial, the case did not only just appear on legal desks. Mr Sanderson first filed for damages in January 2019, seeking $300,000 in compensation for his injuries. Shortly after, Paltrow filed a countersuit asking for a symbolic $1, as well as coverage for her legal expenses.”