that the first question had not been filled out and subsequently explained that the jury had been unable to reach a unanimous answer to the first question, but had unanimously answered “no” to the second question. Based on the jury’s unanimous answer to the second question and on instruction 28, the trial judge accepted the verdict for Dr. Vigil and denied the Do-marais’ motion for a new trial. II. Jury Verdict The Domanns now appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury .verdict was inconsistent and incomplete. We review a district court’s refusal to grant a new trial based on a finding that the jury verdict is not inconsistent for abuse of discretion. Harvey ex rel. Harvey v. General Motors Corp., 873 F.2d 1343, 1346 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Harris Mkt. Research v. Marshall
holding that the trial court has broad discretion in granting denying dissolving or modifying injunctions and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated appellate courts will not disturb the trial courts decision holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion holding that when plaintiffs argue an inconsistent jury verdict this court will not disturb the trial courts denial of a motion for a new trial absent a showing of abuse of discretion