|
|
Post by scarlet on Mar 30, 2023 21:55:18 GMT -4
GWYNNOCENT!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 30, 2023 22:00:59 GMT -4
She's been Gwyndicated! I missed the part of the trial where the plaintiff compared Gwyneth to Jeffrey Epstein:  |
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,136
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Mar 31, 2023 4:39:24 GMT -4
She said “I wish you well.” Wow. That's the nicest thing I've heard of her. I don't blame Gwyneth for letting it go to court. It would have set a precedent that suing her = a pay out. |
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Apr 1, 2023 15:53:28 GMT -4
She said “I wish you well.” Wow. That's the nicest thing I've heard of her. Really? Because I feel like in Gwynnie-world, that's the bitchiest, most condescending thing you can possibly say. |
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,136
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Apr 1, 2023 16:15:26 GMT -4
Wow. That's the nicest thing I've heard of her. Really? Because I feel like in Gwynnie-world, that's the bitchiest, most condescending thing you can possibly say. Yeah, really. Though I could be giving her too much credit. |
|
Ridha
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 410
Jun 22, 2021 13:36:50 GMT -4
|
Post by Ridha on Apr 2, 2023 0:26:27 GMT -4
I think it was nice too. I think she might have legitimately felt sorry for him and how his life had panned out, even if he didn’t make his case. It didnt seem like an Amber Heard type plaintiff where they had consciously blamed the other for what they were guilty of, and there’d be nothing but hostility between the two. In the moment I think it’s possible that he did think it was her fault.
He apparently replied “thank you dear”. Which I also think is nice.
Apparently there are memes about the sinisterishness about the exchange/those words. And yes “dear” is often passive aggressive when used by a young to middle aged lady. But men, especially of his generation, use it in a more avuncular straightforward way.
Gwyneth really did an own goal with the “half day of skiing” answer though. It was a pointless, provocative question from his lawyer, and best response would have been by her lawyer to object on irrelevance/argumentative. Best response from her would have been “given that I’m claiming $1 damages In not clear where you think I’ve claimed it was ruined. I fortunately didn’t have any after-effects from the collision so it was upsetting but didn’t ruin anything. And that’s exactly why I’m only claiming $1 damages because I recognise that he didn’t ruin anything just as I recognise that the accident was his fault”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Apr 2, 2023 9:36:13 GMT -4
And that’s exactly why I’m only claiming $1 damages because I recognise that he didn’t ruin anything just as I recognise that the accident was his fault”. In order to win, Gwyneth had to prove that she did suffer harm. There was a whole line of questioning by Gwyneth's lawyer just to prove to the court that she did lose money in excess of $1 and that it wasn't just "symbolic". They tied it to the money she paid to the kids' ski instructor that was wasted. The jury would have been forced to rule against her if she'd said it was no problem for her and didn't cost her anything. Unlike the plaintiff, who blamed every personal problem he's had in the past 7 years on the accident, Gwyneth limited herself to the direct impact of the accident on the ski trip. |
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Apr 2, 2023 9:56:48 GMT -4
They didn’t dwell on it too much in her testimony but this trip was the first time she and Brad Falchuk’s kids spent time together. It sounded like there was a lot of emotional investment in the trip because they wanted to see if they could blend families. That was one reason no expense was spared (also, she and Brad are both super rich, LOL). They wanted the trip to go really well and this guy ruined their day and it did cost her money. She was shaken up.
|
|
Ridha
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 410
Jun 22, 2021 13:36:50 GMT -4
|
Post by Ridha on Apr 2, 2023 12:11:07 GMT -4
And that’s exactly why I’m only claiming $1 damages because I recognise that he didn’t ruin anything just as I recognise that the accident was his fault”. In order to win, Gwyneth had to prove that she did suffer harm. There was a whole line of questioning by Gwyneth's lawyer just to prove to the court that she did lose money in excess of $1 and that it wasn't just "symbolic". They tied it to the money she paid to the kids' ski instructor that was wasted. The jury would have been forced to rule against her if she'd said it was no problem for her and didn't cost her anything. Unlike the plaintiff, who blamed every personal problem he's had in the past 7 years on the accident, Gwyneth limited herself to the direct impact of the accident on the ski trip. Oh of course good point, there has to be harm suffered. So in US can one claim for Pure Economic Loss, ie when there’s no underlying physical injury? In UK it’s only Consequential Economic Loss ie as a result of the injury that’s claimable, except in cases of negligent misstatement by professional when purely financial loss becomes claimable. Does that mean that Gwyneth claimed a physical injury like emotional damage or that purely financial loss is claimable in US? |
|
|
|
Post by ikmccall on Apr 2, 2023 18:45:00 GMT -4
Wow. That's the nicest thing I've heard of her. Really? Because I feel like in Gwynnie-world, that's the bitchiest, most condescending thing you can possibly say. To paraphrase someone on social media, it’s the Beverly Hills version of “Bless your heart” |
|
