If Properly Preserved, Inconsistency In Jury Verdict Need Not Be Raised Again On Post-Trial Motion

In Arrieta v. Shams Waterproofing, Inc., plaintiffs appealed from a jury verdict that awarded them damages for future pain and suffering, but no damages for past pain and suffering. Counsel for plaintiffs properly preserved his objection by raising the issue of inconsistency in the jury's verdict prior to the jury's discharge. In his concurring opinion, Justice McGuire observed that plaintiffs were not required by law to again raise in their post-trial motion the issue of inconsistency. Justice McGuire further observed that the timeliness of a post-trial motion is irrelevant with respect to an appeal from a judgment, but timeliness is relevant and outcome determinative with respect to an appeal from an Order denying the motion.