>> WELCOME BACK. TENSIONS ARE RUNNING HIGH IN THE COURTROOM FOR GWYNETH PALTROW. SKI ACCIDENT TRIAL. BOTH SHE AND HER ACCUSER HAVE NOW TAKEN THE STAND AND THEY ARE TELLING VERY DIFFERENT STORIES. >> KAYNA WHITWORTH HAS MORE . GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING. TENSIONS RUNNING HIGH AS HOLLYWOOD A-LIST GWYNETH PALTROW LEGAL TEAM TAKES CHARGE IN A CIVIL CASE FOR HER 2016 SKI COLLISION. PANCHO'S ATTORNEYS TRYING TO DRIVE A HOLE IN HER TESTIMONY FROM TERRY SANDERSON, WHO WAS 69 YEARS OLD WHEN HE CLAIMS PALTROW RAN INTO HIM ON THE SLOPES OF DEER VALLEY RESORT IN UTAH. >> I JUST CALLED MR. ANDERSON FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE STAND. >> SANDERSON TELLING HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. >> I GOT HIT IN MY BACK SO HARD ,SERIOUS, SERIOUS SMACK, NEVER BEEN HIT THAT HARD. >> AND I'M FLYING. I'M ABSOLUTELY FLYING. HIS TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING PETRO'S MR. SANDERSON, KATTEGAT ACTUALLY HIT ME ON THAT SKI. >> AND THAT IS THE TRUTH. THE OSCAR WINNER DOUBLING DOWN. >> I SAID YOU SCARED DIRECTLY INTO MY F ING BACK . AND HE SAID , OH, SORRY, SORRY. I'M SORRY. >> BUT SANDERSONS SWEARING IT WASN'T HIS FAULT. TERRY , DID YOU CAUSE THE SKI COLLISION WITH MISS POUTRE? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. PELTIER'S ATTORNEY THEN SHOWING THE JURY AN ANIMATED RENDERING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PALMEIRAS SON'S SKI INSTRUCTOR WHO WAS THERE, PALTROW AND SANDERSON SEEN CROSSING NEAR EACH OTHER DOWN THE THAT WOULD REPRESENT MR. SANDERSON. >> BUT THE WITNESS SAID HE JUST MISSED SEEING THE EXACT MOMENT THE TWO COLLIDED AFTER THE SKI ACCIDENT. SANDERSON SAYS HIS LIFE WAS NEVER THE SAME. >> I'M LIKE LIVING ANOTHER LIFE NOW. MY INTERACTION WITH MY FAMILY HAS BEEN MORE DIFFICULT. >> THEY TOLD ME THEY KNOW THAT SHE CHANGES HIS LAWYERS NOW ASKING FOR THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, CLAIMING PALTOS OUT OF CONTROL SKIING CAUSED FOUR BROKEN RIBS, PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PERMANENT TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. PALMERO COUNTERSUING FOR A SYMBOLIC ONE DOLLAR AND HER ATTORNEY FEES ATTORNEYS FEES. >> IN A CASE LIKE THIS, IT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE TWENTY . SIXTEEN CAN EASILY ADD UP INTO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE ATTORNEYS BECAUSE ATTORNEYS DO CHARGE BY THE HOUR. OUR THANKS TO KAYNA WHITWORTH FOR THAT. AND LET'S BRING IN ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR, HOST OF THE LONG CRIME NETWORK, BRIAN BUCKMIRE FOR MORE . HI, BRIAN . SO TODAY WE'RE HEARING FROM AN EXPERT IN THE BIOMECHANICS OF SKIING. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT TESTIMONY? FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS WAS A JOB OR AN AREA OF STUDY, BUT IT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU THINK OF THE QUESTIONS THAT PALTOS ATTORNEYS ASKED SANDERSONS WITNESS WHO WAS A BIOMECHANICS EXPERT, BUT NOT THAT IN SKIING. SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR MUCH MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT SKIING HAPPENS, HOW AXONS CAN OCCUR AND HOW INJURIES MAY COME ABOUT. BASED ON PALTOS POINT OF VIEW, I THINK THE JURY MAY CREDIT THIS WITNESS MORE THAN THAT OF SANDERSONS BECAUSE OF HIS SPECIALTY. >> NOW, PATROS DEFENSE GRILLED SANDERSON ON THAT EMAIL HE WROTE SAYING, QUOTE, I'M FAMOUS . >> WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF HIS EXPLANATION? I DON'T THINK HE REALLY HELD WATER OR HELD UP ON HIS SKIS. >> WHATEVER METAPHOR YOU WANT TO USE, BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE HE WAS BACKTRACKING THAT THAT WAS I THINK AT ONE POINT HE EVEN SAID , WELL, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PERSONALITY. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HUMOR. THAT'S A DIFFERENT HIM. THAT IS NOW THE PERSON AFTER THE ACCIDENT AND THE PERSON THAT STUCK IT TO ME WHEN HE SAID THAT, WELL, WHICH PERSONALITY IS TESTIFYING NOW? IF THAT'S A DIFFERENT YOU? >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD EXPLANATION. AND NOW SANDERSON TESTIFIED THAT HE HEARD A BLOOD CURDLING CRY JUST BEFORE THE CRASH. HE DESCRIBED IT AS LIKE SOMEONE WAS OUT OF CONTROL, ABOUT TO CRASH TO A TREE. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS HIS TESTIMONY AND HOW DO YOU THINK HE DID ON CROSS? SO A NUMBER OF THINGS ON THAT ONE . I DON'T THINK THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THAT IN BECAUSE HOW CAN A PERSON TELL WHAT A SCREAM MEANS TO THE OTHER PERSON? I THINK IS VERY SMART THAT HE GOT IT IN BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT POWERFUL BEYOND JUST DOING THE ORDINARY ACTIONS OF A SKIER. SHE NEEDS TO BE RECKLESS FOR THIS TO BE A CLAIM THAT HE CAN WIN BECAUSE THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION OF RISK WHEN YOU COMPETE OR PLAY OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY SPORT THAT YOU COULD BE INJURED. AND SO HE MEANS TO SAY THAT SHE DID SOMETHING RECKLESS. BUT I THINK A JURY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PASS THROUGH THAT AND SAY, WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS AGREEMENT THAT WHAT IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO THEY MAY BELIEVE HIM AND SAY, WELL, OBVIOUSLY, SHE WAS OUT OF CONTROL BASED ON THE SCREEN? I THINK IT REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW EITHER