How Paltrow got her way in court
Photo created by Sadie Kaminsky
In 2016, actress Gwyneth Paltrow and retired Optometrist, Terry Sanderson, were involved in a ski crash accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort. After multiple lawsuits and claims of celebrity exploitation over the years, the case was closed and Paltrow won, but it’s hard not to think that her status was the deciding factor.
Gwyneth Paltrow, an actress known for her recurring roles on Glee, The Politician, and movies like Avengers: Infinity War and Spider-man: Homecoming, has become a significant public figure over the years, so it was no surprise that when she took the stand in court, her sheer presence would impact the way people treated her.
The beginning of March 2023 marked the official kickoff of the trial. There was an obscene amount of back-and-forth talk between the two legal teams due to both parties not agreeing on what had actually taken place to cause this accident. Initially, in 2016, both parties claimed that the other ran into them. Terry Sanderson had sued Gwyneth Paltrow for allegedly running into him from behind, due to her reckless skiing and lack of care for her surroundings. She continued to deny the claims, which ultimately led to the blame being put on Sanderson. Sanderson now deals with a significant amount of brain damage from the accident, which was expressed by him and his lawyers, but Paltrow and her lawyers used it to their advantage to question his reliability in this whole case. which when there is medical evidence to prove it, still seems extremely inappropriate from an outside perspective, but was something the court took into consideration.
As the trial went on, there were a plethora of notable Paltrow moments that just made me want to give myself the hardest facepalm of my entire life. The exchanges between her and Sanderson’s team throughout the course of their cross-examinations represent just how much people can push aside the subject of the matter just because there’s a celebrity in the room.
For example, during her testimony, she was asked by his team if this accident had prevented her from enjoying the rest of her so-called “very expensive vacation,” a question that seemed unimaginable for a courtroom. The response? Well, she of course lost a day of skiing, so she was disappointed. An obvious answer to the question, but one that didn’t need to have been said just to prove a point. Although these types of questions where the answer is clear are common for lawyers to ask, his question especially stood out because it made it so painstakingly evident that her status was an important aspect of the case. And it just goes downhill from here.
Regardless of the outcome, people will continue to love her for it because of her status, a clear indication that in many people’s eyes, she could do no wrong.
In another cross-examination exchange, Sanderson’s attorney had a full-blown conversation with her about her height. The attorney asked how tall she was, then when she said she was 5 ’10, they replied: “I am so jealous.” Too star-struck to stay on task, these professionals were having conversational chats with Paltrow like they were two friends out for lunch. Behavior like this doesn’t belong in a courtroom. Had this been a legal case between two “regular civilians,” chances are these conversations would not be taking place; but of course, there’s always an exception for celebrities. What does comparing heights have to do with a ski crash? That’s a really good question.
If you can believe it, in a trial surrounding a skiing accident at a Utah resort, Gwyneth Paltrow was even asked about her relationship with Taylor Swift, and if they’re good friends. How are the two related? They’re not. But who cares when you have the chance to ask this important question? Something like this may seem like you’d only ever see this happen in an SNL sketch, but this was in fact a very real line of questioning. Paltrow responded to these questions with ease, because these have absolutely nothing to do with what she was there for. Regardless of the outcome, people will continue to love her for it because of her status, a clear indication that in many people’s eyes, she could do no wrong.
They ended up ruling in favor of Gwyneth Paltrow, rather than Terry Sanderson. With a decent amount of evidence, the ruling made sense for the most part, and came to a consensus on March 30. Paltrow was gracious and wished Sanderson well, which showed her humility. The problem is, she was given an advantage that Sanderson did not. The overall behavior in the courtroom was unprofessional, and neither Paltrow nor Sanderson could help that. His legal team asking unrelated questions to the case is a perfect example of the presence of a celebrity getting into your head. This isn’t to say Paltrow had planned for this to happen, that it’s all her fault, but at the same time, she and her legal team knew this was happening, and in some respect, used it to their advantage. Most celebrities in court benefit from this, so it’s not shocking, but it sure is disappointing.
Even Sanderson wasn’t naive about what was happening around him. “I’d rethink a little about how I could be characterized,” said Terry Sanderson. “That’s a real disappointment, that it wasn’t just about the facts of the accident. I didn’t realize that when you go down this road, I thought it would be about a ski accident … It turned out it was about the narrative of the life I’ve lived.”
This goes to show that status can get you far in life, not just limited to Hollywood, but in the courtroom too. Of course, celebrities of this nature can’t prevent people from getting excited about being in the same room as them, but it is on them to set the tone and set boundaries, so that it doesn’t interfere with the legal proceeding. In many cases it isn’t created by the celebrity, it’s how out of hand people get by being in their presence. In many cases, especially when celebrities are dealing with “regular civilians,” they end up getting around any form of punishment. It’s easy to pin it on them and say that they use their status to take advantage of a situation, which in part is true, but the people in charge of serving justice and instilling the law see these celebrities in a completely different light. Many forget that these celebrities are people just like us, so we need to start to treat them as such, instead of constantly putting them on a pedestal.
Sadie Kaminsky is a senior who intends on pursuing a career in broadcast journalism while also continuing her acting career. She is apart of the Executive...
Cynthia Fey • Apr 13, 2023 at 11:07 am
“I’m so jealous”? I had not heard that tidbit from the trial. The privilege given this rich White lady lies bare the massive gross injustices happening in U.S. courts. Justice is supposed to be blind and all should be treated equally.