1ºThis guy is such a sleazeball. He still maintains that her, "celebrity" gives her the upper hand in a trial that was a complete waste of everyone's time.
The best part was when the defense put up photo after photo of his many vacations all over the world since the accident, some being very soon after.
He's a liar and a pathetic little man.
I cannot stand Paltrow. But for her to countersue for $1 showed class and the desire for her to show she was not in the wrong.
I really hope the GoPro footage leaks some day, and Sanderson is shown for the liar he knows he is.
2ºWhatever his intentions or decision was to file a case is on him. In our country each is innocent until proven guilty. Our justice system is based on a jury to decide your claim. A jury of your peers. She is a claimant just like anyone else although I see many saying it due to her celebrity. The jury has spoken. Im sure they took their oath very seriously. I know I would have. In this case there had to be a winner or loser or possibly a wash. I know I wouldn't claim any miscarriage of justice I wasn't privy to see and hear all the evidence as the jury was. Court TV makes for a viewing audience what is going on in the courts but that's about it.
3ºEric Gleisner You're in the ballpark about what the verdict means, but lawyers will disagree since you missed the nuances. In a civic case, the jury only have to find that the Plaintiff was 51% more believable. Thus, when a plaintiff (the old guy) loses, you're right that it is like the jury find her innocent. In a criminal trial with the heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (86%? 90%? 96%" certain), there is a lot of room been believing the defendant did it (51%) and being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Since the jury also found in her favor on her claim against him, your conclusion that the jury found she did not cause the accident is extremely reasonable.
4ºOne should not think that because Paltrow won, she had a good attorney. That would be faulty logic. She won on the facts. She did not cause the accident. Her win was in spite of her atty -- the old guy with the white hair. The young one was fine. In my decade of coaching Mock Trial, I never had a student perform as poorly as her older atty.
Something similar can happen when famous people are seriously injured out of town. The surgeon who's been kicked upstairs to administration will call rank and take over treatment of the celebrity, who suffers, since the more qualified younger doctors are barred from treatment. My guess is that is what happened her -- the old guy was senior partner in the law firm which her insurance company hired.
5ºYes we still expect magnanimity from each of them - they should never have been judged if they could have just settled it between them. Nobody loses, nobody wins.But if one had himself mindful of every item in the trial proceedings as shown or aired, one CAN learn from it to apply later for their own. Perhaps there are some underlinings that this case is never a frivolous nor capricious as many judged rashly, oh it is tedious to get into critical thinking.....the court deem it not to become a precedent....and you could surmise as to the why/s. Very amusing.