the jury’s verdict in favor of Queenstown and Turner, we would view them as prevailing parties for purposes of Smith’s appeal, but we see no reason why the District should benefit from all inferences to which Queenstown and Turner might have been entitled. Perhaps the District meant to argue that the jury verdicts were inconsistent. In civil cases where this argument is properly raised, it does impose a special obligation on the court to view the evidence in a manner that reconciles the verdicts if possible, and to grant a new trial if not. Freeman v. Chicago Park Dist., 189 F.3d 613, 615 (7th Cir.1999). While we have serious doubts about whether to apply this standard where, as here, the issue is not properly raised, see Babcock v. Gen. Motors Corp., 299 F.3d 60, 63-64 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), we need not resolve that point since, as we
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it holding that in order to preserve the issue a party must object to inconsistent verdicts prior to judgment being entered holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review