the subject matter Berquist testified to at trial (reasons why major railroads were amending their safety rules). ¶46. Accordingly, the discovery violation arguments made by Illinois Central do not require a reversal of the jury verdict. C. ¶47. Illinois Central also argues that Berquist’s testimony and opinions were not relevant. However, we find no evidence in the record (either in Illinois Central’s motion in limine, arguments at trial or post-trial motions) that Illinois Central objected to the relevance of Berquist testimony. Only now on appeal does Illinois Central argue that Berquist’s testimony was not relevant. Thus, Illinois Central is procedurally barred from raising this argument on appeal. Chantey Music Publ’g, Inc. v. Malaco, Inc., 915 So.2d 1052, 1060 (Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). Procedural bar aside, we find little merit to
holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that courts of appeals will generally not consider arguments raised on appeal for first time in reply brief holding that this court does not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal as the case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the brief holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal