The Order of the Court is stated below:

Dated: April 25, 2022 /s/ KENT HOLMBERG

06:42:11 AM District Court Judge

STEPHEN W. OWENS - #6957

JAMES T. EGAN - #15479
NOURIN N. ABOURAHMA - #17647
EPPERSON & OWENS, P.C.
10 West 100 South, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Tel: (801) 983-9800
Fax: (801) 983-9808
sowens@eolawoffice.com
jegan@eolawoffice.com
nabourahma@eolawoffice.com
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Gwyneth Paltrow
______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SUMMIT COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
______________________________________________________________________________
)
TERRY SANDERSON, ) ORDER GRANTING
) DEFENDANT AND
Plaintiff, ) COUNTERCLAIMANT GWYNETH
v. ) PALTROW’S MOTION FOR
) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GWYNETH PALTROW; ERIC ) ON THE ISSUES OF
CHRISTIANSEN; DEER VALLEY ) (1) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
RESORT COMPANY, LLC; and JANE AND ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF
JOHN DOE EMPLOYEES 1 AND 2, ) ACTION AND (2) PUNITIVE
) DAMAGES
Defendants. )
)
____________________________________ ) (CASE SUBJECT TO A
) PROTECTIVE ORDER DATED
GWYNETH PALTROW, ) NOVEMBER 14, 2019)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 190500048
)
TERRY SANDERSON, ) Judge Kent R. Holmberg
)
Tier 3
Counterclaim Defendant. )
________________________________________________________________________

______

April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 1 of 9

 The above-mentioned matter came before the Court on February 10, 2022, for argument

concerning, among other motions, Defendant Gwyneth Paltrow’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment on the Issues of (1) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) Cause of Action

and (2) Punitive Damages. All parties were represented.

After reviewing the full briefing1 and hearing oral arguments, and being fully informed,

the Court hereby grants the motion for partial summary judgment and dismisses:

1. Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cause of action; and

2. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

The Court bases these rulings on the reasoning, authority, and arguments, which are

summarized below.

1. This case arises out of a ski collision between Plaintiff Terry Sanderson and

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gwyneth Paltrow at Deer Valley ski resort on February 26,

2016.

2. Plaintiff’s claim for simple negligence against Ms. Paltrow is not before the Court. The

NIED cause of action and punitive damages claim arise from Ms. Paltrow’s post-collision

conduct. (See, in part, Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief at p. 34). Nothing about the collision itself

supports these claims.

3. Plaintiff’s own ski expert, Greg Skordas, concluded that the evidence indicates that

Defendant Paltrow’s post-collision actions were “reasonable under the circumstances” and

that she remained at the scene (i.e., this was not a “hit and run”). The expert found that Ms.

1 Defendant Deer Valley also briefed and argued the NIED issue, and the Court considered that information in
this ruling.

2
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 2 of 9
 Paltrow and a Deer Valley instructor “did in fact stop at the scene and rendered aid to the

point when they all felt Sanderson was not seriously injured.” (Report dated July 27, 2021, at

p.10).

Plaintiff’s NIED Claim

1. Plaintiff’s NIED claim fails as a matter of law because the undisputed material facts cannot

be reasonably interpreted to conclude that (1) Defendant Paltrow’s post-collision actions

were likely to inflict emotional distress, (2) that Plaintiff’s claimed distress was a reasonably

foreseeable consequence of Defendant Paltrow’s post-collision actions, or (3) that Plaintiff’s

distress from the post-collision conduct exceeds the threshold of severity required of an

NIED claim.

2. Utah law mirrors the Restatement (Second) of Torts in its definition of the NIED action,

which reads as follows:

(1) If the actor unintentionally causes emotional distress to

another, [she] is subject to liability to the other for resulting
illness or bodily harm if the actor

(a) should have realized that [her conduct] involved an unreasonable risk of
causing the distress, otherwise than by knowledge of the harm or peril of a
third person, and

(b) from facts known to [her], should have realized that the distress, if it were
caused, might result in illness or bodily harm.

Harnicher v. University of Utah Med. Ctr., 962 P.2d 67, 69 (Utah 1998) (quoting Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 313 (1965)). It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege emotional distress.

Rather, emotional distress must be proven by means of severe physical or mental

manifestations. Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 858 P.2d 970, 974, 982-83 (Utah

1993). “The emotional distress suffered must be [] such that ‘a reasonable person normally

3
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 3 of 9
 constituted would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the

circumstances of the case.’” Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center, supra at 69

(Utah 1998); see also Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., supra at 982-83. A threshold

severity test is necessary because “the existence of and cause of a mental illness often is not

obvious in a manner comparable to a physical-injury or illness.” Harnicher, supra at 72.

3. Apparently, no Utah Court has reviewed a case similar to this one (i.e., an NIED action

involving a tortfeasor skier allegedly leaving the scene of a collision). However, the Utah

Supreme Court cautioned against expansion of NIED actions because of the challenges

associated with ascertaining damages for mental suffering. See Mower v. Baird, 2018 WL

3322749 (Utah 2018). Many distress-inducing situations fail to produce a legitimate NIED

claim.

4. The undisputed facts do not support the assertion that Ms. Paltrow committed a “hit and run.”

Indeed, Plaintiff’s own ski expert, Greg Skordas, concluded that the evidence indicates that

Defendant Paltrow’s actions were “reasonable under the circumstances” and that she

remained at the scene until confirming that Plaintiff was not seriously injured. (Report dated

July 27, 2021, at p. 10).

5. Ms. Paltrow’s post-collision actions did not create a reasonable risk of bodily harm. No

evidence suggests that Ms. Paltrow had reason to believe that her departure would cause

Plaintiff injury or emotional distress such that he “would be unable to adequately cope” with

his circumstances. See Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center, supra at 69 (Utah

1998); Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., supra at 982-83.

6. The distress claimed by Plaintiff by Ms. Paltrow’s departure cannot be disconnected from the

collision itself. Plaintiff actually has few memories of the post-collision events and learned

4
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 4 of 9
 about them later by talking to his friend. This lacks the severity required by the extremely

high standard for NIED claims under Utah law, which does not recognize anxiety,

depression, and memory loss as NIED-level injuries unless they occur alongside severe

physical or mental symptoms. No reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiff’s alleged distress

rises to this level.

7. Plaintiff himself testified that his feelings of being unable to cope with life are only

occasional. Moreover, since the collision at issue, Plaintiff has traveled internationally

multiple times, including to Thailand (for three weeks), the Netherlands (several times), the

Canary Islands, various countries within Central Europe (for two weeks), Morocco, Peru and

Costa Rica. He also frequently travelled domestically.

8. This case does not involve circumstances akin to those under which the Utah Supreme Court

has expanded NIED recovery in Mower v. Baird, 422 P.3d 837 (Utah 2018) (therapist’s

recklessly creating false memories in child).

9. Finally, the Court finds that Ms. Paltrow did not have a duty to further remain at the collision

site.

Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Claim

10. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law because the undisputed

material facts concerning Defendant Paltrow’s post-collision actions cannot be reasonably

interpreted as evidence of malicious intent or reckless indifference.

11. To establish a basis for punitive damages under Utah law, Plaintiff must demonstrate by clear

and convincing evidence that Defendant (1) committed tortious conduct that was willful and

malicious or (2) acted with reckless indifference toward the rights of Plaintiff. See Utah Code

5
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 5 of 9
 Ann. § 78B-8-201(l)(a).2 For evidence to be “clear and convincing,” it must “have reached

the point where there remains no serious or substantial doubt as the correctness of the

conclusion.” Boyette v. L.W. Looney & Sone Inc., 932 F. Supp. 1344, 1347 (D. Utah 1996).

12. Utah law supports judicial screening of punitive damage claims and removal of such claims

from a jury’s purview when the evidence is insufficient. See Biswell v. Duncan, 742 P.2d 80,

87 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (if reasonable minds could not disagree, punitive damage claim

should be dismissed as a matter of law); Russell v. Lundberg, 2005 UT App 315, para. 29,

120 P.3d 541, 547 (affirming summary judgment, dismissing a punitive damage claim,

because “an assessment of the conduct alleged indicates that the plaintiffs cannot prove the

degree of culpability and egregiousness necessary to justify an award of punitive damages”);

see also Gleave v. Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co., 749 P.2d 660, 670 (Utah Ct. App.

1988) (affirming directed verdict dismissing punitive damage claim).

13. Punitive damages are “not intended to vent vindictiveness” and should be awarded only in

exceptional cases. Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc., 675 P.2d 1179, 1186-87 (Utah 1983).

The purpose of punitive damages is to “serve society’s interest in ‘punishing and deterring

outrageous and malicious conduct which is not likely to be deterred by other means.’”

Miskin v. Carter, 761 P.2d 1378, 1380 (Utah 1988) (citing C. McCormick, Handbook on the

Law of Damages §§ 77-78 (1935); J. Stein, Damages and Recovery, Personal Injury and

Death Actions§ 183 (1972)).

2 The statute reads in full as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, punitive damages may be
awarded only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing
evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally
fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of,
the rights of others.”

6
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 6 of 9
 14. Utah’s jurisprudence clearly establishes that punitive damages awards require that claimants

meet an extremely high bar and prove that the actions at issue were done with willful and

malicious intent or reckless indifference. See, Nguyen v. IHC Health Services, 232 P.3d 529

(Ut. Ct. App. 2010).

15. At the very least, the Utah Supreme Court requires a showing that a tortfeasor knew or ought

to have known: “(1) that a high degree of probability exists that the conduct would result in

substantial harm; (2) that the conduct is highly unreasonable or an extreme departure from

ordinary care; and (3) that a high degree of danger is apparent.” Id. “Simple negligence will

never suffice as a basis upon which [punitive] damages may be awarded.” Id. (emphasis

added); see also Nguyen v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 2010 UT App 85,12, 232 P.3d 529,535;

see also Miskin v. Carter, 761 P.2d 1378 (Utah 1988) (holding that drunk driving combined

with nothing more than simple negligence was insufficient to warrant imposition of punitive

damages). Where reasonable minds could not differ in concluding that the evidence fails to

meet the punitive damages standard, the court should eliminate the claim as a matter of law.

See TL Crowther, LLC v. Rocky Mountain Pipeline Sys., LLC, No., 2011 WL 1086107, at *1

(Utah 2011) (quoting Biswell v. Duncan, 742 P.2d 80, 86 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)).

16. Utah law also requires skiers to accept the inherent risks of skiing. In 1979, the Utah

Legislature enacted Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act. See Utah Code §§ 78B-4-401 to 404

(2009). The purpose of the act was “to clarify the law in relation to skiing injuries and the

risks inherent in that sport, to establish as a matter of law that certain risks are inherent in that

sport . . . .” The act expressly lists “collision with other skiers” as an “inherent risk of skiing.”

Id.

7
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 7 of 9
 17. The governing case in Utah on skier-on-skier collisions is Ricci v. Schoultz, 963 P.2d 784,

786 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). In this case, the court affirmed the lower court’s holding that “a

skier does have a duty to other skiers to ski reasonably and within control. However, an

inadvertent fall on a ski slope, alone, does not constitute a breach of this duty.” It also held

that the collision at issue, like “some collisions between skiers,” was due to the “inherent risk

of skiing” that “may occur absent negligence.” Id.

18. No one with knowledge of Ms. Paltrow’s post-collision actions claims to have observed

Defendant Paltrow acting recklessly. Even when interpreted in the light most favorable to

Plaintiff, the undisputed facts fail to support his claim that Defendant Paltrow’s post-collision

actions were likely to result in substantial harm, that they were highly unreasonable or an

extreme departure from ordinary care, or that they came with an apparent and high degree of

danger.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2022.

-------------------------------------------------------END OF ORDER-------------------------------------------------

**Executed and entered by the Court as indicated by the date and seal at the top of the first page**

Adam Strachan
STRACHAN, STRACHAN & SIMON, P.C.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorneys for Defendants Deer Valley Resort
Company, LLC, and Eric Christiansen
Robert B. Sykes
C. Peter Sorensen
/s/ Adam Strachan (permission via email)
SYKES MCALLISTER LAW OFFICES
ADAM STRACHAN
Lawrence D. Buhler
LAWRENCE D. BUHLER, P.C.
Kristin A. VanOrman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jessica J. Johnston
STRONG & HANNI
/s/
Attorneys for Counterclaim Defendant Terry
ROBERT B. SYKES
Sanderson
C. PETER SORENSEN
LAWRENCE D. BUHLER

8
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 8 of 9
 /s/ EPPERSON & OWENS, P.C.
KRISTIN A. VANORMAN
JESSICA J. JOHNSTON Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Gwyneth Paltrow

/s/ James T. Egan

Stephen W. Owens STEPHEN W. OWENS
JAMES T. EGAN
James T. Egan

/tmp/source6775581576683791320.rtf

9
April 25, 2022 06:42 AM 9 of 9