For the past few weeks, Gwyneth Paltrow has been making headlines in connection to her highly publicized trial over a ski crash that occurred in 2016. The case featured a number of notable moments, including one in which Paltrow was asked to act out the situation. The court proceedings ultimately concluded this past week, with Paltrow receiving a winning verdict and being awarded a small monetary sum. In the aftermath, the public has heard comments from the retired actress herself as well as the individual who filed suit against her, Terry Sanderson. Now, one of the jurors in the trial is speaking out in the hopes to make one thing absolutely clear about the case.
Gwyneth Paltrow is far from the first Hollywood star to be involved in a lawsuit with a non-celebrity. In a number of instances, said actors and media personalities have emerged victorious from their legal entanglements. However, in some cases, the public may question whether the defendant or plaintiff’s star power factored into their legal win. Well, Samantha Imrie – who served as Juror No. 11 on Paltrow’s case – wants it known that the jury didn’t express favoritism when determining a verdict. On that note, the 31-year-old Imrie explained the logic that went into that ultimate decision:
I think it's important that the public doesn't just think that this was a win because Gwyneth's a celebrity. I mean, this is based on the evidence. This is based on the law. I do work in medicine and you have to look at everyone the same. So I think that that should apply in the courtroom as well.
The Oscar winner was sued by retired optometrist Terry Sanderson over an incident in which she allegedly crashed into him and caused injuries. Sanderson was angling for $300,000 in damages but, because he lost the case, he must pay the actress $1 for “symbolic damages.” Not only that, but he’ll also have to foot the bill for her legal expenses. After the decision came down, the Marvel alum sent a classy response Sanderson’s way.
During her interview with Good Morning America, Samantha Imrie provided more insight into her rationale. Imrie reasoned that while the defendant is an actress, she “didn't feel she had a reason to lie under oath.” She was also impressed by the testimony Dr. Irving Scher provided on Gwyneth Paltrow’s behalf. Additionally, it would seem that Imrie’s thinking was also impacted by the images that showed Terry Sanderson – who claimed to have suffered “brain damage” after the purported collision – traveling the world in the years following the incident. Recalling her reaction to the pics, Imrie said:
I think I wrote down, 'Wow, I need to make some more money so I can go travel this way.' I wouldn't have thought he was capable of those things based on the picture that had been painted.
Terry Sanderon has since stated that he regrets having pursued the case, partially because of the massive attention he’s received since. The man even became the subject of a few viral memes. As he put it, “I'm going to be on the Internet forever.”
However, the buzz may not stop him from taking further legal action. His attorney, Robert Sykes, stated that they “sincerely disagree with the outcome and will consider all options moving forward.” Potential courses of action could even include “a motion to the court for a new trial or a possible appeal.” Only time will tell whether the man will continue to seek retribution for the alleged collision. And if another case with Gwyneth Paltrow does occur, one would think that jurors would approach it with the kind of logic that Samantha Imre detailed.
