patently plainly erroneous. We presume the jury followed the district court’s instructions. Hale v. Gibson, 227 F.3d 1298, 1325 (10th Cir.2000). Putting aside the question of whether the ATV was lawfully on the road, the record contained evidence Travis was otherwise negligent. Defendants presented evidence Travis turned left without looking behind him, failed to signal his turn, and did not make a proper left turn. Thus the jury had some basis other than Travis’ traffic violation to apportion a significant share of comparative negligence to him. AFFIRMED. 1 . Defendants argue Plaintiffs did not preserve their objection to Instruction 14 because Plaintiffs objected before, but not after, the court instructed the jury. See Smith v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 382 F.2d 190, 191 (10th Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue we therefore should review
holding that the defendants objection was untimely and thus waived because the evidence to which he objected had already been presented to the jury holding that objection to instructions by codefendants counsel is sufficient to preserve any error holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after 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 a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion