Sanderson v Pal trow

[Deleted]

She was also rattled and/or sore enough that she stopped skiing afterwards. I can imagine that if impact - whether it was her into him or him into her - was hard enough to cause broken ribs, she wasn't feeling great.

I've felt pretty sore and shaken up from a crashes that involved no one else and ditched everyone I was with just go get down to base, get my boots off, and medicate with gin ASAP. He was not alone, there were people with him. He was not at risk of being stranded, and the instructor, who presumably is more expert at the best way to handle the situation told her it was okay to go ahead. It's not like she left so that her day wasn't interrupted by waiting to get him help. (But seriously, bringing up the fact that she lost out on half a day of skiing was... something.)

[jaygee]

You pretty much sign away all your liability claims when you buy a lift ticket. Obviously if there is a major problem at the resort like they didn’t maintain the lift or were negligent you would have a case. But any accident that is just inherent in skiing is all at your own risk and you have agreed to that when you take the hill.

[Deleted]

I think the most interesting point of the whole trial is how hard it is to separate my feelings of thinking she’s a miserable hag she is from everything else involved.

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 11:19:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

I think the most interesting point of the whole trial is how hard it is to separate my feelings of thinking she’s a miserable hag she is from everything else involved.

I 100% believe no matter who is at fault that she was bitchy, especially if he hit her

[AmyG]

Mar 28, 2023 11:21:56 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:19:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

I think the most interesting point of the whole trial is how hard it is to separate my feelings of thinking she’s a miserable hag she is from everything else involved.

I 100% believe no matter who is at fault that she was bitchy, especially if he hit her

I've seen sweet little old ladies turn into swearing sailors when getting knocked down so I don't fault that. If The guy uphill hits you from behind most people reply with a stream of obscenities of wtf.

[hugsfordrugs]

Mar 28, 2023 11:19:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

I think the most interesting point of the whole trial is how hard it is to separate my feelings of thinking she’s a miserable hag she is from everything else involved.

I would be an awful juror on this trial for this very reason.  Even everything I'm reading here I'm starting from a point of she's guilty unless something convinces me otherwise. 

I would also be super embarrassed to actually say this to a judge since I have no reason to not like her other then her online persona.  Good thing I don't live there! lol

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 11:24:44 GMT -6 AmyG said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:21:56 GMT -6 angelashly said:

I 100% believe no matter who is at fault that she was bitchy, especially if he hit her

I've seen sweet little old ladies turn into swearing sailors when getting knocked down so I don't fault that. If The guy uphill hits you from behind most people reply with a stream of obscenities of wtf.

She is known to be terrible and thinks she is superior than others.

I have no problem with people being mad that’s not what I’m talking about

[bloom]

Mar 28, 2023 11:03:16 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 10:27:35 GMT -6 bloom said:

but at what point can someone refuse care?  TS didn't, just hypothetically speaking.  like in an auto accident, for example?  can they force you to be seen if there's a 'claimed', not apparent head injury?  I don't know!  there's some personal liability at play.

To me a car accident is different than someone getting hurt at my place of business where technically I can be sued. Yes car accidents can end in litigation but it’s usually the insurance companies and I can’t force the person I hit to go to the hospital

I'm pretty they said that before you physically ski, you release liability to the resort.  Just like if you went bungee jumping or to a trampoline place, you sign a waiver.  

[angelashly]

So for everyone saying she isn’t to blame what are the reasons from the evidence?

I hate saying this but I’m genuinely asking

[emma]

I honestly don’t know who to believe and since the video footage has mysteriously gone missing it’s a he said she said thing. They both have witnesses saying each was uphill

[bloom]

Mar 28, 2023 11:43:23 GMT -6 angelashly said:

So for everyone saying she isn’t to blame what are the reasons from the evidence?

I hate saying this but I’m genuinely asking

I think it's a culmination of all of the witnesses testimony and exhibits.  there's no smoking gun.  

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 11:51:29 GMT -6 bloom said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:43:23 GMT -6 angelashly said:

So for everyone saying she isn’t to blame what are the reasons from the evidence?

I hate saying this but I’m genuinely asking

I think it's a culmination of all of the witnesses testimony and exhibits.  there's no smoking gun.  

But everything I’m reading says that they are and have people saying the same things for them so I guess I’m wondering what in the culmination it is.

I’m asking because I don’t know who to believe at this point.

[bloom]

Mar 28, 2023 11:21:56 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:19:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

I think the most interesting point of the whole trial is how hard it is to separate my feelings of thinking she’s a miserable hag she is from everything else involved.

I 100% believe no matter who is at fault that she was bitchy, especially if he hit her

and she acknowledged and admitted that she fussed at him in her testimony....not a crime. 

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 11:55:13 GMT -6 bloom said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:21:56 GMT -6 angelashly said:

I 100% believe no matter who is at fault that she was bitchy, especially if he hit her

and she acknowledged and admitted that she fussed at him in her testimony....not a crime. 

Didn’t say it was

[bloom]

Mar 28, 2023 11:55:12 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:51:29 GMT -6 bloom said:

I think it's a culmination of all of the witnesses testimony and exhibits.  there's no smoking gun.  

But everything I’m reading says that they are and have people saying the same things for them so I guess I’m wondering what in the culmination it is.

I’m asking because I don’t know who to believe at this point.

what do you mean by saying the same things?  

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 11:56:27 GMT -6 bloom said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:55:12 GMT -6 angelashly said:

But everything I’m reading says that they are and have people saying the same things for them so I guess I’m wondering what in the culmination it is.

I’m asking because I don’t know who to believe at this point.

what do you mean by saying the same things?  

As reported In this thread they both have witnesses for them saying they were uphill and hit the other so I’m asking what piece of evidence I should be looking at differently to show her not at fault

[oreobitsy]

I keep going back to trying to figure out which person was uphill.

I suspect he was uphill and was skiing faster. I think he passed her just prior to the collision and technically was downhill but she didn’t have the time and ability to avoid him.

[bloom]

Mar 28, 2023 11:59:01 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:56:27 GMT -6 bloom said:

what do you mean by saying the same things?  

As reported In this thread they both have witnesses for them saying they were uphill and hit the other so I’m asking what piece of evidence I should be looking at differently to show her not at fault

there's no specific thing, at least not yet.  no one witnessed it and there's no video evidence.  I think Ramone claims he witnessed it, but I think he's lying and full of it.  he hasn't persuaded me otherwise.  nothing's been proven one way or the other.  

[Eagles]

Mar 28, 2023 12:03:20 GMT -6 bloom said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:59:01 GMT -6 angelashly said:

As reported In this thread they both have witnesses for them saying they were uphill and hit the other so I’m asking what piece of evidence I should be looking at differently to show her not at fault

there's no specific thing, at least not yet.  no one witnessed it and there's no video evidence.  I think Ramone claims he witnessed it, but I think he's lying and full of it.  he hasn't persuaded me otherwise.  nothing's been proven one way or the other.  

Why do you think he's lying?

[McBenny]

Mar 28, 2023 7:21:36 GMT -6 bloom said:

Mar 28, 2023 6:13:01 GMT -6 angelashly said:

I agree. Yes I’m aware you kind of ski at your own risk and know things can happen, but at the same time if you have lasting damage especially if you are older.

Also with true grunting or whatever could he truly be making noises trying to get up?

as for the noises, GP testified that TS grunted AS he collided with her, which lead her to think briefly that it was a possible sexual assault.  

I saw mention of this in the other thread and wonder how we got here? I don't really know what happened but I find this narrative making me lean a way. How can 2 people crashing into one another make you think possible SA? I do believe he was down and did not just pop up. Also according to witnesses she did not remove any of her Headwear on the hill so no one then knew it was her.

I would think colliding bodies would make me grunt in pain. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[McBenny]

Mar 28, 2023 9:40:19 GMT -6 emma said:

But if ski patrol weren’t worried enough to call an ambulance then why would you expect for GP to hang around on the slope with him?

also, it’s a dangerous sport, please always wear a helmet

ski patrol did not initially come if you believe one man. He was trying to help him down the hill and then flagged help down. The man was then out in tobaggan down and G was already gone then. The witness testified that he didn't see the instructor asking him any questions but just yelling at him. The witness also testified that he didn't know it was GP until another staff member said it.

[angelashly]

Mar 28, 2023 12:29:59 GMT -6 McBenny said:

Mar 28, 2023 7:21:36 GMT -6 bloom said:

as for the noises, GP testified that TS grunted AS he collided with her, which lead her to think briefly that it was a possible sexual assault.  

I saw mention of this in the other thread and wonder how we got here? I don't really know what happened but I find this narrative making me lean a way. How can 2 people crashing into one another make you think possible SA? I do believe he was down and did not just pop up. Also according to witnesses she did not remove any of her Headwear on the hill so no one then knew it was her.

I would think colliding bodies would make me grunt in pain. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think she knew what she was doing when she said this. So many people immediately went to fuck him

ETA: I’m sure that makes me sound terrible but it’s what I feel if she was the one to say SA

[McBenny]

Mar 28, 2023 11:14:31 GMT -6 @dot said:

She was also rattled and/or sore enough that she stopped skiing afterwards. I can imagine that if impact - whether it was her into him or him into her - was hard enough to cause broken ribs, she wasn't feeling great.

I've felt pretty sore and shaken up from a crashes that involved no one else and ditched everyone I was with just go get down to base, get my boots off, and medicate with gin ASAP. He was not alone, there were people with him. He was not at risk of being stranded, and the instructor, who presumably is more expert at the best way to handle the situation told her it was okay to go ahead. It's not like she left so that her day wasn't interrupted by waiting to get him help. (But seriously, bringing up the fact that she lost out on half a day of skiing was... something.)

the instructor who knew who she was...

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2023 11:55:12 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:51:29 GMT -6 bloom said:

I think it's a culmination of all of the witnesses testimony and exhibits.  there's no smoking gun.  

But everything I’m reading says that they are and have people saying the same things for them so I guess I’m wondering what in the culmination it is.

I’m asking because I don’t know who to believe at this point.

I don't think anyone knows.  Especially with a helmet and goggles, your field of peripheral view is just not great. Add in a guy who apparently told his doctor his sight was significantly compromised, and it starts to get murky. And just human nature in general? Have 4 people witness an accident, you'll probably get 4 different versions of events. 

There may have been video at some point, but it was "lost." (From another thread.. supposedly S and his family had an email that referenced that they have video of the accident, but it was lost. An attorney chimed in, this is a copy/paste: So there’s this thing called spoliation of evidence that GP’s lawyers are trying to prove. The email (which she and her father authenticated) had a video attachment. Once they had any idea there was the likelihood of litigation, they had a duty to preserve all evidence. Failure to preserve is spoliation, and it means the judge will tell the jury (or will himself or herself if there isn’t a jury) they must assume that whatever was in that evidence was so awful for the side that failed to preserve it that they purposely destroyed it to keep the trier of fact from seeing it. It’s bad, like worst case scenario for a lawyer bad, to have a client who has failed to preserve evidence.)

[icedcoffee]

Okay the SA thing was weird for me too reading it here, especially with everyone then saying it is not uncommon for people to collide on the slopes.

But I didn't know if there was more to it than what was being said

[McBenny]

Mar 28, 2023 12:32:47 GMT -6 angelashly said:

Mar 28, 2023 12:29:59 GMT -6 McBenny said:

I saw mention of this in the other thread and wonder how we got here? I don't really know what happened but I find this narrative making me lean a way. How can 2 people crashing into one another make you think possible SA? I do believe he was down and did not just pop up. Also according to witnesses she did not remove any of her Headwear on the hill so no one then knew it was her.

I would think colliding bodies would make me grunt in pain. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think she knew what she was doing when she said this. So many people immediately went to fuck him

ETA: I’m sure that makes me sound terrible but it’s what I feel if she was the one to say SA

exactly

I was very open and just ready to hear the case in this. I have no clue what happened here. But this being SA is very low.

What we know:
He was not skiing alone.
she was not skiing alone.
She screamed before collision.
He had broken ribs.
She did not.

So I believe he was down. There was no motion to grab her or at her clothes. Or at his own clothes. And on a hill? With other skiiers around?

Oh gwenyth you did not have to go there.

I hope she loses just for saying this shit.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2023 12:33:25 GMT -6 McBenny said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:14:31 GMT -6 @dot said:

She was also rattled and/or sore enough that she stopped skiing afterwards. I can imagine that if impact - whether it was her into him or him into her - was hard enough to cause broken ribs, she wasn't feeling great.

I've felt pretty sore and shaken up from a crashes that involved no one else and ditched everyone I was with just go get down to base, get my boots off, and medicate with gin ASAP. He was not alone, there were people with him. He was not at risk of being stranded, and the instructor, who presumably is more expert at the best way to handle the situation told her it was okay to go ahead. It's not like she left so that her day wasn't interrupted by waiting to get him help. (But seriously, bringing up the fact that she lost out on half a day of skiing was... something.)

the instructor who knew who she was...

Right, but leaving him with the instructor is different than her crashing, getting up, and leaving him alone. This is a classic he said / she said story, where there is probably so mix of truth and fabrication on all sides. But she is just so inherently unlikable that adds to the drama. 

[McBenny]

Mar 28, 2023 12:35:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

Mar 28, 2023 11:55:12 GMT -6 angelashly said:

But everything I’m reading says that they are and have people saying the same things for them so I guess I’m wondering what in the culmination it is.

I’m asking because I don’t know who to believe at this point.

I don't think anyone knows.  Especially with a helmet and goggles, your field of peripheral view is just not great. Add in a guy who apparently told his doctor his sight was significantly compromised, and it starts to get murky. And just human nature in general? Have 4 people witness an accident, you'll probably get 4 different versions of events. 

There may have been video at some point, but it was "lost." (From another thread.. supposedly S and his family had an email that referenced that they have video of the accident, but it was lost. An attorney chimed in, this is a copy/paste: So there’s this thing called spoliation of evidence that GP’s lawyers are trying to prove. The email (which she and her father authenticated) had a video attachment. Once they had any idea there was the likelihood of litigation, they had a duty to preserve all evidence. Failure to preserve is spoliation, and it means the judge will tell the jury (or will himself or herself if there isn’t a jury) they must assume that whatever was in that evidence was so awful for the side that failed to preserve it that they purposely destroyed it to keep the trier of fact from seeing it. It’s bad, like worst case scenario for a lawyer bad, to have a client who has failed to preserve evidence.)

the video was posted by a 3rd party site. The link to the video has long since been broken. From accounts it's a scream and collision. I don't see how spoilatiom can be proven when there was no possession of the actual video but an email with a link attachment.

[angelashly]

Not going to lie I giggled when I heard the clip of them asking if she picked $1 because of Taylor Swift. I don’t know why I just did

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2023 12:40:12 GMT -6 McBenny said:

Mar 28, 2023 12:35:54 GMT -6 @dot said:

I don't think anyone knows.  Especially with a helmet and goggles, your field of peripheral view is just not great. Add in a guy who apparently told his doctor his sight was significantly compromised, and it starts to get murky. And just human nature in general? Have 4 people witness an accident, you'll probably get 4 different versions of events. 

There may have been video at some point, but it was "lost." (From another thread.. supposedly S and his family had an email that referenced that they have video of the accident, but it was lost. An attorney chimed in, this is a copy/paste: So there’s this thing called spoliation of evidence that GP’s lawyers are trying to prove. The email (which she and her father authenticated) had a video attachment. Once they had any idea there was the likelihood of litigation, they had a duty to preserve all evidence. Failure to preserve is spoliation, and it means the judge will tell the jury (or will himself or herself if there isn’t a jury) they must assume that whatever was in that evidence was so awful for the side that failed to preserve it that they purposely destroyed it to keep the trier of fact from seeing it. It’s bad, like worst case scenario for a lawyer bad, to have a client who has failed to preserve evidence.)

the video was posted by a 3rd party site. The link to the video has long since been broken. From accounts it's a scream and collision. I don't see how spoilatiom can be proven when there was no possession of the actual video but an email with a link attachment.

I honestly don't know anything about the video, other than the rumor of it. But if I had any likelihood that I'd be suing someone and there was a video that supported my case, the first thing I'm doing it downloading it. Maybe even if I didn't know I was suing. Maybe he didn't know he'd be suing. They referenced it in emails though, right? So this was, at some point after the accident where he knew he wasn't feeling great. I don't know how it plays out in court in any case, or how it would play out in this one, just that was a point someone brought up.