Paltrow’s version of ski crash ‘consistent’ with law of physics

A biochemical engineer testifies that Gwyneth Paltrow’s version of events made scientific sense whereas the plaintiff Terry Sanderson’s did not.

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is accused in a lawsuit of crashing into a skier during a 2016 family ski vacation, leaving him with brain damage and four broken ribs. Picture: Getty

Actor Gwyneth Paltrow’s version of events in her 2016 ski crash is “consistent with the laws of physics”, a Utah court heard on Tuesday.

Biochemical engineer Dr Irving Scher testified that Paltrow’s account of events made scientific sense whereas the plaintiff Terry Sanderson’s did not.

Sanderson, 76, a retired optometrist, has sued Paltrow, saying she skied “out of control” during a run at the exclusive Deer Valley Resort in Park City, according to court documents.

Actor Gwyneth Paltrow’s version of events in the 2016 ski crash “consistent with the laws of physics” says biochemical engineer Dr Irving Scher. Picture: Getty

He claimed that she hit his back “knocking him down hard, knocking him out,’ leaving him with four broken ribs and a brain injury that he says changed his personality and strained his relationship with his family. He is seeking USD$300,000 in damages.

Jurors were given a physics lesson by Scher, in which he wrote out several calculations and diagrams on a board with a marker to illustrate his findings, arguing that the incident could not have happened as Sanderson alleges.

In last week’s evidence, Dr Richard Boehne, a neurologist and biomedical engineer, told the court that Paltrow striking Sanderson from behind is the “only scenario” that could have resulted in Sanderson’s injuries.

Dr. Irving Scher testifies in Gwyneth Paltrow's civil trial over a collision with another skier at the Park City District Courthouse on March 28, 2023, in Park City, Utah. Picture: Getty

Scher argued that calculations by Boehne had been “thrown off” by an incorrect velocity, and that corrected measurements meant Sanderson’s injuries should have been “much worse.”

“Dr Boehne cannot say with any accuracy that Ms Paltrow landed on Mr Sanderson. His calculations are wrong,” he said, noting that the laws of physics supported Paltrow’s claim that Sanderson collided with her.

“Ms Paltrow’s version has them spooning as they’re coming down together, which would make sense if their legs got caught up.”

Gwyneth Paltrow's attorneys play an animated re-creation in court of how they say her 2016 ski collision with a retired optometrist transpired. Picture: AFP

He added that it would have taken very little force for Paltrow’s skis to come off in the collision, but they stayed on. “I know how bindings work, it’s just physics,” he said. “If her skis stayed on I can’t see how she continued to move 10ft, if she was trapped underneath him.”

The jury was later shown an animation of Paltrow’s version of events, which Judge Kent Holberg told the jury are not evidence and are to be taken as tools for experts hired by Paltrow. Under cross-examination Scher said his fees as an expert witness were $500 an hour and he guessed he had charged Paltrow’s team more than $10,000 so far.

Earlier in Steve Graff, the vice-president of mountain operations at Deer Valley resort, denied questioning from Sanderson’s legal team that the resort had attempted to cover up the incident to protect Paltrow.