28 March 2023 , 21:01
972
0
An expert witness has testified that Gwyenth Paltrow's version of events in her 2016 ski crash is "consistent with the laws of physics".
The actress, 50, is being sued by retired optometrist Terry Sanderson following a ski incident in Deer Valley Resort in Park City, Utah, in 2016.
Mr Sanderson is seeking damages of $300,000 (£246,000) for "a brain injury, four broken ribs and other serious injuries" in the civil lawsuit.
Ms Paltrow, meanwhile, has filed a counter-claim, in which she is seeking legal fees and damages of $1 (82p).
Biochemical engineer Dr Irving Scher testified on Tuesday and disputed evidence from previous witnesses, claiming their analysis had been miscalculated and he could not get other scenarios "to work".
Gwyneth Paltrow jokes about 'doing cocaine' and 'going home with random men'
Dr. Irving Scher says Gwyneth Paltrow's version of events are supported by science (Getty Images)Jurors were given a short physics lesson by Dr Scher, in which he wrote out several calculations and diagrams on a large board with a marker.
Dr Scher said calculations by Dr Richard Boehne, heard in court last week, had been "thrown off" by an incorrect velocity, and that corrected measurements meant Mr Sanderson’s injuries should have been "much worse".
"Ms Paltrow's version of events is consistent with the laws of physics in how people turn and rotate," he said.
He added: "Dr Boehne cannot say with any accuracy that Ms Paltrow landed on Mr Sanderson. His calculations are wrong."
Jurors were shown an animation of the collision during his testimony (AP)"I believe Ms Paltrow's version is possible," Dr Scher said before agreeing with James Egan, representing the actress, that it is "likely considering it is the only one that matches with the physics."
In his evidence, Dr Boehne said Ms Paltrow instigating the crash is the "only scenario" that could have resulted in Mr Sanderson's injuries and he had provided a "cushion" for the actress.
"Dr Boehne cannot say that Ms Paltrow's version of events is impossible. It is the only version out of the two that matches with the laws of physics," Dr Scher said.
Asked about evidence from another skier, Craig Ramon, who was present at the time of the incident and claimed Ms Paltrow caused the collision, Dr Scher added: "I couldn’t get it to work."
Ski expert Paul Baugher also testified (youtube)He also noted that it would have taken very little force for Ms 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."
Fans say Katy Perry looks like a 'wax figure' as she poses with Gwyneth Paltrow
Jurors also heard from ski expert Paul Baugher who testified about the rules of the slopes, noting that skiers have to always remain in control.
When asked if Paltrow had been in control, Baugher said: "Yes."
After saying no to the same question about Sanderson, he said: "The failure for someone to look out, even if they're in control the whole time. By definition, that's skiing out of control, even if it’s momentary."
The trial continues.