Gwyneth Paltrow’s children backed up her story during her Utah ski trial

The other day, I accidentally found myself on Lawyer Twitter, and they were talking about the Gwyneth Paltrow ski trial and why she didn’t just settle with Terry Sanderson, the guy who is suing her for $300K. Lawyer Twitter was basically on Goop’s side, saying that if Sanderson really crashed into her, then of course she should fight his lawsuit, and that rich people love when people sue them because it gives their army of lawyers something to do. Plus, Gwyneth doesn’t want every peasant she’s ever treated shabbily to feel empowered to sue her. So, here we are. Gwyneth’s children Moses and Apple didn’t have to testify in court – they were already deposed, and parts of their depositions were read into evidence.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s son Moses had his deposition read aloud in court by lawyers, recalling the immediate aftermath of the actress’s 2016 ski collision with Terry Sanderson. Though Moses, 16, and his older sister Apple, 18, were ready to testify in person on Monday for the civil trial, Paltrow’s defense team on Tuesday instead read portions of their depositions to be admitted as evidence for the jury.

Moses, who was 9 at the time of the Paltrow family’s February 2016 ski trip when the incident occurred, said in the deposition that he “did not see the actual collision” when it happened.

“When I skied over, I heard my mom yelling at the guy,” Moses recalled. “She was saying something along the lines of, ‘What the F-word. You just ran into me.’ ” Paltrow apologized in her testimony Friday for her “bad language” that day, adding, “I was pretty upset.”

In the deposition, Moses also denied calling for his mom’s attention while they were skiing, which the plaintiff’s legal team suggested was why Paltrow was distracted in the moment they say she crashed into Sanderson. Paltrow previously testified during the trial that she thought Moses was to her left and slightly behind her, while daughter Apple, then 11, was further down the slope at the time of the collision.

In Apple’s deposition read aloud Tuesday, she said Paltrow told her about the collision when they reunited at the bottom of the mountain shortly after the incident.

Apple said at lunch afterward, “My mom told me. She was very— she told us what happened. … I noticed she looked a bit shocked, and I asked what had happened, and she said, ‘This A-hole ran into me. He ran right into my back.’ And I remember she did this motion saying he ran into her back and they both went down. I remember that’s what she said.”

[From People]

If you’d like to hear more about Apple’s testimony (via the deposition) go here. Basically, Apple backs up her mother’s story, which is not surprising because Apple didn’t witness it directly and she’s only repeating what Gwyneth told her at the time. Apple did witness her mom acting “frantic” about the crash and Apple said that Gwyneth was in pain and got a massage after lunch.

Meanwhile, people are obsessed with Gwyneth’s court fashion – it seems pretty on-point for a civil trial in Utah, complete with comfortable boots. I actually appreciate the fact that Gwyneth isn’t wearing, like, Armani suits? She looks like what she is – a rich lifestyle influencer on trial for a ski crash in Utah.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

79 Responses to “Gwyneth Paltrow’s children backed up her story during her Utah ski trial”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jessica says:

    Sorry but Apple said she knew her mom was hurt because she went to the spa for a massage later…lol. If I’m hurt I go to the doctor, not a masseuse. What a joke.

    • Caroline says:

      It really depends on the type of pain. If you broke something, obviously you need to see a doctor. but if you’ve fallen and that triggered muscle spasms (as has happened to me while skiing), a doctor isn’t going to take the time to gently work on the muscle and a massage therapist is absolutely appropriate in that context. I actually started seeing one at my doctor’s suggestion.

      • Jessica says:

        How do you know nothing is broken? A masseuse can’t take X Rays.

      • Watching this trial, the plantiff, Terry Anderson, and his lawyers seem to be sinking against Ms. Goop. She is more believable. I’ve never heard of anyone suing over skiing. His own daughters testified he drove a car on the highway and read ag book at the same time! He made a dozen overseas vacations hiking camping and doing yoga. Seems like he is just out for a payday.

      • Kirsten says:

        Jessica: You know when something is broken.

    • Lionel says:

      @Jessica, whether she was hurt or how badly she was hurt is not this issue. He says she crashed into him (and hurt him enough to warrant damages.) She says that’s not true. Doesn’t matter if she broke a bone or “needed” a massage or decided to take a nap or was fine and went skiing for the rest of the day. She’s not claiming she was hurt, because she’s not the one who filed suit. Her counter suit does not include damages and is meant to discourage frivolous lawsuits in the future.

    • tisme says:

      I’m not a Gwynnie fan but if I got hit by someone on the slopes and I was sore, I would not be going to a dr, I would be proactive and see a RMT or my chiro. Or both.

  2. The Hench says:

    I go back and forth on this. Since their truths are diametrically opposed – Gwynnie – he ran into me, Sanderson – she ran into me – one of them has to be lying. If it’s Sanderson, it’s a very long time for a relatively small amount of money to go to all this trouble. His legal bill could well end up being more than he is claiming. If it’s Gynneth then why didn’t she just settle if she knows she hit him – £300k would mean nothing to her?

    Moses and Apple haven’t advanced the cause any – they are reporting secondhand rather than as eyewitnesses. Surely there must be an independent third party on this crowded ski slope that saw who hit who?

    • Ameerah M says:

      He originally was suing her for millions. The court capped it.

      • Red says:

        Yes, but the point still remains. When the amount was cut, he could have dropped the case. $300k isn’t that much after legal bills, and Gwyneth is suing for him to pay hers if she wins. Seems like a lot for him with very little payout.

    • Harper says:

      Craig Ramon, who was skiing in the group from Meetup, is the only eye witness to the accident. He was uphill and said right away that the person took out Sanderson. Whether he is believed by the jury or not will be interesting to see. He isn’t really Sanderson’s friend, just an acquaintance from the group.

      • Ameerah M says:

        It doesn’t make sense how she ran into him when he was the one skiing downhill. He was above her. The only way she would have been able to hit him is if their positions had been reversed. Sanderson himself maintains that he was skiing downhill.

      • Harper says:

        It has not been established that he was above her. That is her statement; his statement is the opposite. As @TheHench said, their accounts are diametrically opposed. The plaintiff has the only eyewitness of the collision.

      • Isabella says:

        Craig is a friend of Sanderson’s and colorblind. He was not convincing on the stand.

      • Ameerah M says:

        @Harper Sanderson also says that the accident gave him an alternate personality and it was THAT personality testifying. So…

      • Jenn says:

        I was once in a collision that was unequivocally 100% my fault, and immediately there was a guy on the scene telling me he “saw it all” and that I was “in the right.” It was extremely weird and opportunistic. I don’t put any faith into the “sole eyewitness” at all.

    • Lizzie says:

      I think Apple and Moses statements were read in to show Paltrow’s story has been consistent.
      BTW, Sanderson made an awful dig at her yesterday. He said no one holds celebrities accountable for their actions and next thing they are molesting children on private islands. The judge shut that down. There were a lot of shocked faces.

    • Josephine says:

      Her defense attorneys are doing a good job. Even if she did hit him, they have dragged up considerable evidence that his life was not much impacted — he’s taken a ton of active vacations to exotic locations and his own family has given evidence that seems to repudiate the concussion allegation. He’s also been inconsistent. So even if she did hit him, it strikes me as the type of accident that anyone takes the risk of while skiing. But I don’t believe that she did hit him, honestly, because he does not come across as crecible.

    • K.T says:

      Following this trial and skimming most witnesses, Dr Terry Sanderson is either lying or due to his personality and issues has confabulated his dodgy witness/friend’s account – he thinks he’s in the right and today he compared the situation of the lawsuit to Epstein today!!

      He is not believeable and he said some weird stuff on stand today that makes him seem narcissistic and a bit of a controlling weirdo. He has a list of pre-crash aging and stroke related issues and yet AFTER the supposedly devastating crash with Paltrow he still flew to dozens of world trips (Marrakesh, Europe, machu pichu, skiing, scuba diving!!) – still partying/drinking at 76!!

      He made snotty Paltrow seem great in comparison?! It’s telling he wanted 3million and tried to sue the resort and Paltrow kid’s ski instructor. And the threw judge threw away all that and now it’s just negligence and 300,000!

      It was kinda awesomely embarrassing, dude seems like a rich, controlling Karen….with small man syndrome. I can’t wait for the last arguments and verdict, whatever happens!

      • kirk says:

        “he wanted 3million AND tried to sue the resort AND Paltrow kid’s ski instructor” ? Dude sounds kinda OTT. But that could be due to one of his other personalities…

    • Melissa says:

      The kids’ statements about what their mom said were able to come under the Excited Utterance exception to the hearsay rule. She spoke to them immediately after the accident, while she was still mentally and physically dealing with the adrenaline rush.

      • Kate says:

        Thanks @Melissa! I was going to look up the hearsay exception for her kids’ statements – it’s been a while since the bar exam, lol

      • Lux says:

        I watched as much of the testimonies as I could rather than just reading summaries or transcripts. I believe Gwyneth. She was articulate and consistent and made very reasonable points; Sanderson’s lawyer is a bit wacky and everyone had to humor her a bit, I felt. Out-of-touch as she is, I don’t think she would drag her kids into this unless she knew for sure that their testimony would mirror hers, which I believe is the truth. The swearing part was what made it believable; both she and her son would remember that and I doubt very much she would coach him on that part.

        People are talking about her injuries as if the victim of a crash had to have suffered more than the perpetrator. Based on the way it’s described, it’s entirely possible that when they both fell (after spoon-gliding for a bit), he was behind her and therefore experienced greater impact. Also, if she felt, as the “crashee”, that she was fine, she may not have thought the crasher suffered much more. All in all, I agree with Lawyer Twitter.

      • Grant says:

        Wouldn’t the statements also get in as statements by a party-opponent? Goop was present in the courtroom and able to be cross-examined so I’m not sure they constitute hearsay anyway.

        EDIT–nvm, I just realized y’all are talking about the kiddos’ statements.

    • Typical Virgo says:

      @Hench- I agree that the childrens’ depositions aren’t really helping or hurting Goop’s case. They are her kids, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that someone’s child only gave supportive testimony for his/her parent, and omitted anything that would not help.
      However, I would think that the crashee would have more injuries, because the crasher would be cushioned by the crashee.

      Do any lawyers here know if there was any possibility that her kids, before they gave depositions, might have had to testify IN court? Isn’t it better, if you want a child to keep a story straight, for them to give a deposition in some lawyers office, as opposed to having to testify in court, and be cross examined, which is a much scarier envicrashes. Or am I totally off?

      • Snoozer says:

        It depends which way they impacted and which way they fell. Goop is saying he skied into her, propelled them both forward and then they fell sideways and back into the mountain with her on top of him – so he would have cushioned her fall. I have seen crashes like that before, it’s believable.

    • Robert Phillips says:

      The problem I have with Gwyniths story is if you run into somebody from behind then wouldn’t you end up on top of them? If he landed on top of her and was hurt. Then how did she get up and start cursing him out. Wouldn’t she have to be on top to get up that fast no one saw them? Which would mean she was behind him and ran into him. Does that make sense.

      • Jenn says:

        I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think that’s what would actually happen. If someone slid into you while you were facing downhill and standing/idling fully upright, the impact would most likely knock your legs/lower body “forward” out from under you, causing you to lose your footing, and you would therefore fall “backward”/uphill and topple ONTO the person behind you.

        I think this is why the physicality of the clients has also been brought up by both sets of attorneys: she is rather tall and willowy, whereas he is considerably more “compact,” like a speed skater who takes people “out” in roller derby games. I do think it’s most likely that she came down like a tree.

  3. Maddy says:

    Gwyneth is so… ugh. Arrogance and entitlement oozing out of every pore.

  4. Josephine says:

    I’m not surprised that they did not testify since it opens them up to cross-examination, which is not a good experience for anyone let alone a kid. As a juror, though, I would not count the deposition testimony much precisely because there was no cross-examination.

    • equality says:

      Nothing to consider really anyway since neither child saw the collision.

      • Josephine says:

        What Gwen said immediately after the accident is somewhat probative. Had I hit someone, I would have said it to my family members (oh, crap, I just ran into someone), and had someone hit me, I definitely would have made a stink about it. So there is something there at least.

      • FHMom says:

        You are giving Gwyneth credit for being the type of person who would admit responsibility. A lot of people would not admit that

      • Josephine says:

        @FHMom – the law considers the immediacy of the statement (sometimes considered an “excited utterance”) as typically truthful. of course people lie all the time but it usually takes them some time to come up with the lie. so if she saw the kids immediately after (and I honestly don’t know if she did), what she first said to them is more likely to be taken as the truth (and it’s just evidence to evaluate, by the way, which is all a court/jury can do, consider the totality of the evidence).

        you are totally correct that she could be the type to simply not ever tell the truth and delude herself into thinking she’s always right, but I don’t see the evidence that she’s that type of sociopath. she can be privileged, smug, arrogant and awful all day long but that’s different than a convincing liar on autopilot.

    • AS says:

      Just a procedural note, depositions are the equivalent of in-person testimony. Same procedural rules apply, so yes there was cross-examination and both defense and plaintiff’s attorneys would have questioned apple and Moses.

      • Josephine says:

        But cross in depositions tends to be pretty gentle, searching for the weak points, trying to get a little more out so they can hang themselves, circling back around for consitency if allowed. and as an atty at that point in the proceedings you don’t yet have all the info, so cross is less effective then, too. i don’t think they are equivalent at all.

      • Emily says:

        Agreed, AS. Depositions are often taken for use in trial if the witness is not available, etc. All parties and their counsel have notice and opposing counsel is able to cross as they would at trial. They have to be noted in the Notice of Deposition that says it is De Bene Esse. My experience in civil litigation is reading a deposition transcript is not as compelling as in court testimony, but I don’t blame Gwyneth for not wanting her kids to be part of the courtroom spectacle and to stay in school.

  5. Harper says:

    Can someone tell me why Moses and Apple didn’t appear? They specifically mentioned that they were both going to testify, and that Apple was missing school and Moses missing the fun of his spring break to do so. Then all of a sudden, Goopie’s team was reading their depositions. The defense has put on so many sleep-inducing expert witnesses and went too long. The Newtonian math guy who had the whiteboard filled with calculations? A complete waste of time, everyone was zoned out, when they could have given the jury Apple, Moses and Brad?

    • Josephine says:

      Per my comment above, I think it was about the cross-examination possibility. You do not want to subject a child to cross. It’s super hard to prepare a smart adult for cross let alone someone young and impressionable. A good cross goes really quickly and can definitely cause a witness to stumble.

      • Lizzie says:

        They are also short on time and have to give closing arguments today. They were trying to get their experts in.

  6. shanaynay says:

    Of course they are going to side with their mother. Personally I think she’s FOS, and so are her kids for lying for their mom. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it. I’d be truly surprised.

    • Ang says:

      She is EXACTLY the type of person who reframes a situation in her own favour in the moment. Meaning, she smashed into him when she wasn’t looking, and in the chaos she locked in to her own mind that she was the victim. So, she immediately told her children that someone skied into her, instead of “we bashed into each other” or “I skied into someone”.

      • Harper says:

        Goopie even had a hard time admitting that she screamed, and the cursing at Sanderson is what I think sealed her fate to be sued. Mr. Harper is a lawyer who worked for a place with multiple facilities where people were always falling etc. He said they had a team that always went to the injured’s home, apologized for their pain, and offered to pay the medical bills. They rarely got sued. People don’t want to be treated like poop when they are hurt, and Gwyneth treated Sanderson like poop. When you are a multi-million dollar entity, it costs less to treat people right when they are hurt.

      • FHMom says:

        I just posted that above. Is she really the kind of person who would take responsibility for her own mistake? Doubt it

      • Kate says:

        @Harper – I don’t know. If someone slams into my car, is my initial reaction “oh my goodness I hope they are not hurt” and checking on them, it’s probably going to be immediate anger (which is a natural instinctive fear reaction when your reptile brain perceives danger) and “wtf! you just slammed into me!” Same thing if I’m walking down the street and someone runs into me from behind. I might get my wits about me if the person looks really hurt and I realize I’m not really hurt – but I think her reaction is perfectly normal for being unexpectedly hit.

      • Torttu says:

        Yes, Harper – people often calm down if there’s a proper, sincere apology. (Sosiologist Dan Ariely wrote about this in one of his books in a fun way, he had an issue with Toyota if I remember right, and it drove him crazy the company would not admit their mistake. Or something like that. And then he studied further the effect of an apology. It’s common sense, of course.)

  7. Ann says:

    I believe Gwyneth. I don’t have to like her to believe her. The only reason he sued is because she’s a celebrity worth millions and he’s litigious. I used to have siblings in law like this, seeking insurance settlement payouts as routine and bragging about it. Good for Gwyneth for taking a stand.

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      Ditto. Both are true. She’s hideous. And, so is he.

    • KBeth says:

      I agree, Goop is obnoxious and pretentious but this seems like a money grab. I believe her.

    • MaryContrary says:

      I agree with you. I can’t stand her-but he’s a total whackadoo.

    • Jenn says:

      Well, it’s even less than that, right? The burden is on Sanderson to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the injuries he sustained that day have directly led to his subsequent health issues, and there is literally no way to prove such a thing.

      I have a parent who had Lewy Body dementia (which affects your balance/coordination and causes you to windmill backward and fall a lot), who eventually died of an untreated concussion. It is nigh impossible to pinpoint when his dementia began or which fall resulted in an eventually-fatal concussion. Colliding with Gwyneth Paltrow might be Sanderson’s most *memorable* fall but, if he really went skiing “2, 3 times a week” like he says he did, it is impossible for us to review his entire life and find the fall that resulted in a TBI.

  8. Frippery says:

    I don’t celebrate anyone being injured and I am sure Gwyneth would rather not be dealing with this at all, but this is also the most positive press she’s received in awhile. And I love her outfits.

    • Torttu says:

      The Guardian had a fun article about her “billionaire Italian no-logo muted” clothing yesterday.

    • TeamMeg says:

      Guilty as charged: I have been obsessed with GPs trial style since Day One. Glad I’m not the only one. She looks like a million bucks. (Oh wait—) Gwyneth just walked into court as I am typing, wearing a white pinstripe blouse, buttoned to the collar, under a gorgeous blue velvet blazer. Court fashion perfection.

    • molly says:

      She couldn’t have scripted better press for herself. The clothes, accessories, the constant “bored rich lady” facial expression, an adversary that’s somehow MORE ridiculous and extravagant than her.

      Full marks; no notes.

  9. Kit says:

    I thought de story was she stopped.quicky on de slopes one of her children and he ran into the back of her either way she wasn’t very nice to this older gentleman ??
    All l will say is that Gwyneth looks very different on camera than in photos , l was amazed

    • Isabella says:

      She didn’t stop to look at her children. She was supposedly distracted by them which makes little sense.

  10. lanne says:

    If he was uphill, then he ran into her. She’s an asshole, but even assholes have the right to defend themselves from sham lawsuits. None of his behavior seems to match the injuries he’s claiming, his texts about “now he’ll be famous” are suspicious after the fact. Gweneth being “unlikeable”(and I semi-admire her for leaning into her unlikeability–she’s a rich bitch who doesn’t pretend to be anything else) doesn’t mean she’s in the wrong in this case. I think this grifter dude and his team were hoping that her unlikability would sway the judge and the court of public opinion.

  11. Andrea says:

    All of these players seem truly awful. If I was a tax payer in the state of Utah, I’d just be annoyed that my money was being wasted on such nonsense. My goodness does the justice system have nothing better to do with its time?! What a colossal waste of resources.

  12. K.T says:

    It’s funny to come from caring nothing about this gossip to following along but that’s why US trials are like reality tv! Because it’s a-mazing to come across a guy who makes Goop seem like the normal one! I find him really grating and he reminds me of that annoying elderly Uncle which tries to be the centre of attention of every event. I can’t imagine a jury siding with his version/s (he’s changing his testimony as it’s goes along). It’s low stakes and trashy fun though, who knows what this jury will decide apon!

  13. Kitten says:

    She is insufferable but at this point, I tend to believe her. What Sanderson is saying just doesn’t make sense and a lot of this just feels like him saving face after being denied the multi-million dollar lawsuit that he was originally gunning for. Kinda feels like sunk cost fallacy at this point.
    And it also makes sense in that this is why Paltrow is pursuing this: she is confident that he’s lying or at least exaggerating and she doesn’t want to just give him an easy pay-out, It really does feel like something she’s pursuing out of principle at this point.

    • TeamMeg says:

      It’s felt that way since the beginning. A matter of principle. Gwyneth easily could have afforded to pay off Sanderson the 300K. It’s likely cost her about that much to spend the past week and change in Utah for court.

  14. Lady Digby says:

    I haven’t followed this closely so maybe my niggle has already been covered at trial. Yes there was a collusion and Terry was left with broken ribs and yet GP left the scene after 4 minutes?! Regardless of responsibility why didn’t GP stay to check he was alright and why didn’t anyone insist she have a medical checkup too? Natasha Richardson died after a skiing accident. Apologises if this point has already been debated!

    • Sarah says:

      She left because the ski instructor stayed. Also, the guy said he was totally fine. It was only after he found out it was Goop that he ‘decided’ he was hurt. I can’t stand Goop, but this was not her fault. The guy is a con artist.

    • Jenn says:

      Yeah, to what Sarah said, she’d hired the resort’s ski instructor for her kid, and the resort’s instructor told her to head down and he’d “handle” checking up on Sanderson. There was a lot of cross-examination about how many times Paltrow had hired this instructor before, how much he was paid, how much he was tipped — the idea being, presumably, that it monetarily benefited the instructor to diminish the situation. But the instructor is important because Sanderson has characterized the collision as a “hit-and-run,” and GP is saying, no, the instructor told me to leave. (I think she thought of him, genuinely, as a representative of the resort, when the ski instructor was probably more like an independent contractor.)

  15. pyritedigger says:

    I heard a bit of the guy’s testimony, and he actually claims the accident gave him multiple personalities and that his new personality was in court. Like c’mon. This guy has no credibility.

    I am not pro-Goop at all, but this guy is full of it.

  16. Shells_Bells says:

    Ugh… I HATE that I’m on Goopy’s side in this.

    This guy just seems like he’s fishing for a pay day and I can’t imagine why she wouldn’t have just settled this if she hit him. She’s in this for the principle.

  17. Birte says:

    I watched this the day before and Gwyneth’s team had multiple experts on stand who talked about Sanderson’s medical history. I was convinced by them that the changes in personality and especially his anxiety that he has suffered from for years are results from his medical history pre-dating the ski accident. Like, it is understandable if he wants to interpret a concussion as the cause of his psychological problems, but according to his numerous doctors (!?) he had those before the accident – even years before the accident.

  18. blue says:

    I don’t know or have any reason to like either of these people but I think the old doc is looking for a payoff to fund his retirement. He’s not credible & I believe GP.

  19. Bingo says:

    I hope the jury goes 50/50 Goop can pay her own legal fees. And while Terry was clearly injured breaking ribs and a concussion. His story does not make sense. And I think he slammed into her. I hope we get a verdict today also. I want to forget about this case and move on with my life.

  20. Ann says:

    After seeing all the activities and places he traveled to after the accident, I had my answer.

  21. jferber says:

    And water is wet.

  22. Bingo says:

    update! Paltrow won her case 100% I think Terry testimony did him in. Jury got it right. Though I hope she doesn’t go after legal expenses. She has the money to spend. The guy has issues hope they find some common ground and walk away in peace.

    • Harper says:

      Jury seemed so done with it and I am too. Glad it is over. I loved watching serious Fishticks when she won. She did a good job hearing the verdict and not gloating, although I imagine she whispered “Nice try” to Sanderson on her way out.

  23. jferber says:

    So, yes, she got her $1, but I still think she’s guilty.

  24. jferber says:

    I hope this trial doesn’t re-invigorate her acting career. Please not that.