I didn’t plan on closely following the Gwyneth Paltrow civil trial. In fact, I wasn’t even aware it was happening. But I recently went on vacation with my extended family, including my dad, and my wife’s mother, the latter of whom was very closely following the trial, and naturally, she wanted to talk to me about it.
It didn’t take me long to get up to speed. The trial had just commenced and, as I explained to my mother-in-law, I was very confident that Ms. Paltrow was going to win the case, for the following reasons.
– Her celebrity status. Celebrities have an advantage in a jury trial. Is that fair? No, but it’s exactly the same as real life. There is a reason why Gwyneth Paltrow gets to be in movies, and you and I don’t. Ms. Paltrow, like almost all celebrities, has a presence and magnetism that causes people to pay attention to her and like her. There’s a reason why she’s been a movie star for 25+ years. Yes, she is also a very good actor, but for every Gwyneth Paltrow, there are hundreds of other actors with similarly formidable acting chops who never get to appear in movies, let alone be a movie star. (And no, it also didn’t hurt that Ms. Paltrow’s mother and father were an accomplished actor and director, respectively). Gwyneth Paltrow has star power, and that same presence that makes her connect with people as a movie star helps her connect with jurors.
– The case against her was weak. For those of you who weren’t following the trial, Ms. Paltrow was involved in a ski collision while on the slopes at the Deer Valley ski resort in Utah. The plaintiff claimed that Ms. Paltrow ran into her from behind while they were both skiing. Ms. Paltrow claimed that the plaintiff ran into her from behind while they were both skiing. Both of these accounts cannot be true. There is no middle ground. One of the two parties is either lying or grossly mistaken in their recall of events. There were no eyewitnesses to the crash. The closest thing either side could produce as a far as an eyewitness were people who saw how the plaintiff and Ms. Paltrow reacted afterwards. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. If a jury can’t clearly determine whose account they think is accurate, the defendant wins. “Ties” go to the defendant. Even if had a been an ordinary person instead of a celebrity, this would be a very weak case for the plaintiff.
– The circumstances behind the lawsuit strongly suggested that the plaintiff was opportunistic. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of what seemed like a very mild ski collision, his physical and mental condition deteriorated to the point where he could barely function in life. As someone who has been skiing for over 40 years, this seemed incredible, especially since it wasn’t so severe of an accident that he had to be hospitalized. He also waited nearly three years to bring his lawsuit. While he apparently was able to beat the statute of limitations for this type of lawsuit, it doesn’t say much for the credibility of the claim that his life was ruined, but that he didn’t think to file a lawsuit until three years later.
What I surmised probably happened was that, like most skiers who are involved in minor mishaps, he just shrugged it off and went about his life, except now he had an interesting story to tell about being in a ski accident with Gwyneth Paltrow. After telling this story to enough people, he probably heard a lot of responses such as “Why don’t you sue her? She’s super filthy rich!” (Ms. Paltrow, in addition to being an Oscar-winning actress, is also the CEO and principal owner of Goop, the highly successful wellness and lifestyle company that she founded in 2012 that sells, among other things, vagina-scented candles. The company is estimated to be worth upwards of $250 million) After hearing this enough, he eventually must have decided to talk to a lawyer who similarly had visions of a large payday. Plaintiff originally sued Ms. Paltrow for $3 million, which represented $300,000 in actual, compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitivate damages.
And that is where the lawsuit’s credibility fell apart completely. If $300,000.00 in compensatory damages seemed somewhat implausible (as it did to me), then $2.7 million in punitive damages sounded like a fairytale, and corroborated the suspicion that the plaintiff was looking to take advantage of his encounter with a wealthy celebrity. I suspect that plaintiff’s lawyer must have told the plaintiff that if he sued Gwyneth Paltrow, she would be eager to settle the case for “nuisance value”, and quickly write him a check because she’s a busy celebrity/actress/lifestyle guru, and her time was worth more than whatever she would pay to settle the case.
In this respect, the civil case against Paltrow very closely resembled the civil case several years ago against Taylor Swift by a Denver radio disc jokey who was fired after Ms. Swift complained that the disc jockey had, while posing for photo with Ms. Swift, put his hand on her ass. The disc jockey sued Ms. Swift for slander, even though there was a photo which very convincingly corroborated her claims about where he put his hand. Undoubtedly, the disc jockey’s lawyer probably told him that if he sued Ms. Swift, she would settle the case just to not have to deal with it. But she did not. She took the case to trial and even countersued the disc jockey for $1, and was victorious in both lawsuits. Ms. Paltrow, in her lawsuit, also countersued the plaintiff for $1, which prompted the plaintiff’s lawyer to ask Ms. Patrow on the witness stand if she had discussed this case with Ms. Swift. (Like Ms. Swift, Ms. Paltrow was victorious in both lawsuits). I don’t know if there’s any lesson to be gleaned from this, except that if a you have a dubious lawsuit against a celebrity, and your lawyer tells you that your celebrity defendant is likely to be too busy with their red-carpet lifestyle to fight your lawsuit, and will settle with you just to make it go away, maybe don’t believe them.
– Plaintiff lost the trial before it even began. Prior to trial, Ms. Paltrow’s lawyer filed a successful motion to strike the punitive damages claim, for lack of evidence of any conduct that, if true, would support an award of punitive damages. That had the effect of reducing the maximum possible judgement from $3 million to $300,000. At that point, the plaintiff had already lost because likely the plaintiff’s lawyer would have never taken the case to begin with if he was going to limited to a maximum of $300,000 in damages. Plaintiff’s lawyer was stuck with either having to dismiss the case completely, or proceed with a trial that was likely going to lose, and not make very much money from even if he somehow won.
So when it was announced that the jury had returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Paltrow both in the plaintiff’s lawsuit against her and in her $1 countersuit against the plaintiff, it was hardly a surprise. It did, however, make me look like a brilliant legal mind to my mother-in-law for having predicted the result. So for that reason alone, thank you Ms. Paltrow, for fighting this lawsuit. You made me look smart to my wife’s mom, which is greatly appreciated. But I still will not be purchasing your vagina-scented candles.
ST