Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Emily O'MARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Antonio Gonzalez, Defendant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered January 12, 2005, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (McDermott v. Coffee Beanery, 9 A.D.3d 195, 206, 777 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2004] ). Particular deference is to be accorded a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a tort action (id. at 206-207, 777 N.Y.S.2d 103). Thus, given that plaintiff, a mounted police officer who suffered a severe injury to the right temple area of her head, was unable to recall being thrown from her horse in the practice ring, and given her expert's concession that, depending on the circumstances, a properly fitted riding helmet would not always protect a person's head from a hard impact, the trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion to set aside, as against the weight of the evidence, the jury's verdict that, although the City was negligent in failing to provide plaintiff with a properly fitted helmet, such negligence was not a substantial cause of her accident.
We have considered plaintiff's other points regarding allegedly inconsistent findings, the allegedly improper bifurcation of the trial, the court's limitation of questioning of plaintiff's expert, and the submission of the issue of defendant Gonzalez's comparative negligence to the jury, and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 27, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)