and the verdicts were entirely consistent. The reading of the verdict by the trial judge and any subsequent objections are not included in the Record on Appeal. It is impossible for us to determine whether Appellants raised timely objections to the issue of the inconsistent verdicts. As such, the issue is not properly preserved for review on appeal. See Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995) (noting appellate court could not consider propriety of jury’s verdict which found neighbor liable for nuisance but awarded no damages, where there was no objection at trial by neighbor or landowner which brought nuisance action, and neither party raised issue on appeal); Stevens v. Allen, 336 S.C. 439, 520 S.E.2d 625 (Ct.App.1999), aff'd, 342 S.C. 47, 536 S.E.2d 663 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The order denying Appellants’ motions for
holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that jurys damagesrelated questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no noneconomic damages in case where liability was hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verdict holding there is no dutyimposed on trial judge to question jurys verdict of liability but no damages unless requested to by a party