Rule 59(a)(5), arguing insufficient damages, and Rule 59(a)(8), contending the verdict was not justified by the evidence. Citing White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association, 216 Ariz. 133, 163 P.3d 1083 (App.2007), and Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff, 153 Ariz. 478, 737 P.2d 1377 (App.1987), the trial court determined that the verdict was “internally inconsistent and not responsive” because “the liability finding required an award at least of uncontroverted damages.” But the court denied the motion for a new trial, concluding that the children had waived the issue under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 49(c) by not objecting to the inconsistent verdict before the jury was discharged. See Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, 202 Ariz. 535, 543 ¶¶ 38-39, 48 P.3d 485, 493 (App.2002) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 5 The court of appeals affirmed, but on
holding that a class action judgment awarding money damages will not bind an absent plaintiff without adequate notice holding that plaintiff who failed to object under rule 49c had waived argument that new trial was required due to inconsistency of jurys findings for plaintiff without awarding damages in negligence action holding that damages were not available to a plaintiff who challenged an ordinance under a due process theory because the plaintiff had not sought a permit and therefore any claim for damages was purely speculative holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding argument that charge submitted improper measure of damages was waived by failure to object in trial court