In fact, the district court warned counsel prior to submission of the form to the jury that they had agreed upon a confusing special verdict form. This confusion does not require vacating the jury’s award of damages, however, because the jury’s intent was clear. See Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364, 82 S.Ct. 780, 786, 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962) (“Where there is a view of the ease that makes the jury’s answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way. For a search for one possible view of the case which will make the jury’s finding inconsistent results in a collision with the Seventh Amendment.”); see also Congregation of the Passion v. Touche Ross & Co., 159 Ill.2d 137, 201 Ill.Dec. 71, 86-87, 636 N.E.2d 503, 518-19 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 358, 130
holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict holding damages verdict need not be vacated because of inconsistency in awards between counts when jurys intent was clear and remittitur cured excessiveness holding that a party waived its objection to the jurys verdict by not objecting to an alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury holding that when a trial court determines that the amount of damages awarded by a jury is excessive the court may either suggest remittitur or grant a new trial on the issue of damages holding that a jurys award of compensatory damages will be set aside on the grounds of excessiveness only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice