whether there is any inconsistency, we must accept any reasonable explanation that reconches the jury’s verdict. Harvey, 873 F.2d at 1348; Heno v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 208 F.3d 847, 852 (10th Cir.2000). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the jury verdict in this case was not inconsistent or incomplete. The general rule adopted by federal courts addressing this question is that “failure by a jury to answer some of the questions in a special verdict does not vitiate an otherwise unanimous verdict where the unanimous answers to the verdict conclusively dispose of the case.” Black v. Riker-Maxson Corp., 401 F.Supp. 693, 696 (S.D.N.Y.1975); see also Technical Res. Servs., Inc. v. Dornier Med. Sys., Inc., 134 F.3d 1458, 1466 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Spectramed, Inc.,
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 failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict holding jury verdict not inconsistent where jury unanimously determined that plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary to recovery despite jurys failure to answer other questions on the special verdict form