Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. 

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email 

corrections@akcourts.us. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

KENISHA SMALL, TRAVIS SMALL

SR., and KENISHA SMALL and 

TRAVIS SMALL SR., on behalf of 

KHANYA SMALL, a minor child, 

Appellants, 

v. 

AUSTIN SAYRE, 

Appellee. 

 ) 

) Supreme Court No. S-15983 

Superior Court No. 4FA-13-01871 CI 

O P I N I O N 

No. 7134 – November 25, 2016 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, 

Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Jane F. Kauvar, Judge. 

Appearances: Michael J. Walleri, Gazewood & Weiner, PC, 

Fairbanks, for Appellants. Gregory R. Henrikson, Walker & 

Eakes, Anchorage, for Appellee. 

Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, and 

Bolger, Justices. [Carney, Justice, not participating.] 

BOLGER, Justice. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A driver and his passengers sued another driver for injuries arising from an 

accident. After a trial, the jury returned an award of past pain and suffering damages for 

the driver and past medical expenses and pain and suffering damages for one of the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

passengers. The driver and passengers appeal thisaward,arguing that it is impermissibly 

inconsistent and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Because the driver and 

passengers failed to challenge the jury verdicts before the trial court, all of their 

challenges are waived, and we affirm the verdicts in full. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

In November 2011 Travis Small was idling in traffic with his wife Kenisha 

and daughter Khanya as passengers when Austin Sayre rear-ended their car. The Smalls 

all went to the hospital following the accident where they were prescribed pain 

medication and advisedto schedulefollow-upappointments with a doctor. In the months 

and years following the accident, the Smalls sought medical treatment for a variety of 

issues that they claimed stemmed from the accident. Travis sought medical and 

chiropractic treatment for neck and back pain. And Kenisha saw over a half-dozen 

medical providers, including neurologists, an orthopedic surgeon, chiropractors, and 

physical therapists. She complained of chronic migraines and experienced pain in her 

upper body, neck, and left shoulder. A year after the accident, a neurosurgeon diagnosed 

her with a herniated disc and recommended that she undergo spinal fusion surgery. But 

Kenisha did not have the surgery at that time because she was pregnant, and she did not 

reschedule the surgery at a later date due to concerns about the cost. 

In April 2013 the Smalls filed a complaint against Sayre alleging 

negligence and damages in excess of $100,000. Sayre ultimately conceded negligence 

but contested both causation and damages. He moved for partial summary judgment on 

the portion of the Smalls’ medical expense claims that were paid by their insurer. The 

-2- 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trial court granted this motion, authorizing the Smalls to pursue recovery of only the 

medical expenses that their insurer had not paid.1 

The Smalls proceeded to a jury trial on their remaining claims in April 

2015. The jury issued three special verdicts, finding that Sayre’s negligence was a 

“substantial factor” in causing injury to Kenisha and Travis but not to Khanya. The jury 

awarded Kenisha $2,000 in past economic damages (for medical expenses or lost wages) 

and $4,000 in past non-economic damages (for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of 

life, physical impairment, or inconvenience) but did not award any future economic or 

non-economic damages. Travis was awarded $4,000 in past non-economic damages but 

was not awarded past economic damages or any future damages. Before the jury 

announced the verdicts, the parties’ lawyers and the judge briefly discussed whether an 

award of pain and suffering without medical expenses would be an inconsistent verdict, 

but the court issued no clear ruling. The Smalls made no motion to disturb the jury 

verdict in the proceedings before the trial court, either by moving for a judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. 

TheSmalls nowappeal thejury verdicts with respect to TravisandKenisha. 

They take issue with two aspects of the verdicts: (1) the jury’s failure to award Kenisha 

damages for future medical expenses to cover the cost of future surgery and (2) the jury’s 

failure to award Travis damages for past medical expenses. The Smalls claim that both 

of these awards are “impermissibly inconsistent” and “contrary to the weight of the 

evidence.” Sayre argues that both of these challenges are waived because the Smalls did 

1 The Smalls’ insurer paid a portion of their medical expenses and sought 

reimbursement from Sayre. Accordingly, it directed them to not “pursue the right to 

collect” that money from Sayre on their own behalf. See Ruggles ex rel. Estate of Mayer 

v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999) (holding that a “subrogated claim belongs to 

the insurer,” giving it the right to “determine that [its] claim should not be pursued”). 

-3- 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not raise a claim of inconsistency before the jury was dismissed and did not move for a 

new trial, instead challenging the verdicts for the first time on appeal. 

III.	 STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“Generally, questionsofwhatevernature,notraisedand properly preserved 

for review in the trial court, will not be noticed on appeal.”2 Accordingly, we review 

issues that were not raised before the trial court for plain error.3 We will find plain error 

“where an obvious mistake has been made which creates a high likelihood that injustice 

has resulted.”4 

IV.	 DISCUSSION 

A.	 The Smalls Waived Their Argument That The Verdicts Were 

Inconsistent Because They Failed To Object To The Verdicts Before 

The Jury Was Discharged. 

We have long held that litigants waive their right to challenge the 

consistency of a jury verdict if they fail to raise the issue before the jury is discharged.5 

This rule is intended “to promote the efficient operation of the courts and to prevent juryshopping by litigants, who would otherwise be able to choose between moving for 

2 Harvey v. Cook, 172 P.3d 794, 802 n.46 (Alaska 2007) (quoting 4 C.J.S. 

Appeal and Error § 292 (2007)). 

3 D.J. v. P.C., 36 P.3d 663, 667-68 (Alaska 2001). 

4 Id. at 668 (quoting Sosa v. State, 4 P.3d 951, 953 (Alaska 2000)). 

5 See John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1044 (Alaska 2002) (“An 

inconsistent verdict argument must be raised before the jury is dismissed.”); Nelson v. 

Progressive Corp., 976 P.2d 859, 863, 864 n.5 (Alaska 1999) (“[A] litigant waives his 

right to challenge the consistency of a jury’s verdict if he fails to raise the issue and move 

for resubmission prior to the jury’s discharge.”), (collecting cases); City of Homer v. 

Land’s End Marine, 459 P.2d 475, 480 (Alaska 1969) (holding that appellant “waived 

the right to challenge the consistency of the answers and the verdict when its counsel 

failed to raise the question prior to the discharge of the jury”). 

-4-	 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

resubmission to the same jury or, by remaining silent, seeking a new trial before a new 

jury.”6 Because we conclude the Smalls did not raise the consistency issue prior to the 

jury’s discharge, their claims are waived. 

With respect to Kenisha’s verdict, the Smalls do not assert that they raised 

the consistency issue at trial, nor do they offer any argument for why they did not waive 

this claim. Accordingly, Kenisha’s claim is waived. 

With respect to Travis’s verdict, the Smalls argue that before the verdict 

was read, they raised the issue that an award of pain and suffering without medical 

expenses would be inconsistent, and that the trial court ruled that it would not be. Due 

to this alleged prior ruling, the Smalls argue that they were not required to raise the 

consistency issue again after the verdict was read to preserve the claim for appeal. 

The Smalls overstate the nature of a short discussion that occurred before 

the jury delivered the verdicts and ignore an opportunity to raise the issue after the 

verdicts were read. A few minutes before the jury returned, Sayre’s attorney told the 

judge and the Smalls’ attorney that the verdict would be inconsistent if the jury awarded 

damages for medical expenses without awarding damages for pain and suffering. The 

Smalls’ attorney then asked, “What happens if it’s the opposite? Let’s say they just 

award pain and suffering, does there have to be a medical then?” Both Sayre’s attorney 

and the judge replied “No,” and the Smalls’ attorney simply responded “Okay.” After 

the verdicts were read, the court asked, “And I believe these are consistent verdicts; 

correct, Counsel?” Sayre’s attorney answered, “Yes, Your Honor.” The transcript 

indicates — and the Smalls do not argue otherwise — that the Smalls’ attorney did not 

respond. 

Nelson, 976 P.2d at 863-64. 

-5- 7134 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Smalls argue that the first discussion “placed the specific issue before 

the trial court” that there could be an award of pain and suffering damages without an 

award for medical expenses and that the court “ruled that such a verdict was not 

impermissibly inconsistent over the objection of [the Smalls’] attorney,” thus preserving 

the issue for appeal. They conclude that they were not required to raise the issue of an 

inconsistent verdict again after the verdict was read. 

But the trial court issued no ruling on the inconsistency of the verdict; the 

Smalls’ attorney did not properly challenge the verdict and the court therefore had no 

opportunity to rule on the issue. The potential inconsistency was discussed before the 

jury rendered its verdict; to elicit a ruling on the consistency of a verdict, the Smalls 

would have needed to raise the issue of consistency after the verdict was rendered, 

provide a clear statement of grounds for objection, and insist on a ruling.7 Instead, the 

Smalls’ attorney asked a hypothetical question unmoored from the facts of this case. He 

did not challenge the judge’s reply that such a verdict would not be inconsistent, let alone 

explain his reasoning or formally raise the issue despite several opportunities to do so. 

Thus, the record does not support the Smalls’ claim on appeal that there was a definitive 

ruling on the consistency issue “over the objection of [the Smalls’] attorney.” Rather, 

7 Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V., 319 P.3d 219, 225 (Alaska 2014) (“[T]o 

preserve an issue for appeal, appellants ‘must show they raised the issue below.’ ” 

(quoting Stadnickyv.SouthparkTerraceHomeowner’s Ass’n, 939P.2d 403, 405 (Alaska 

1997))); Davison v. State, 282 P.3d 1262, 1267 (Alaska 2012) (“To preserve an issue for 

appeal, a party must clearly state the grounds for his objection ‘so that the [superior] 

court may intelligently rule upon the objection.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting 

Williams v. State, 629 P.2d 54, 62 (Alaska 1981))). The Smalls argue that it would have 

been futile to raise the inconsistency issue after the verdict was rendered given the earlier 

discussion. But a discussion is not a ruling, and, with respect to this issue, their attorney 

did not at any point “insist[] on a ruling before the court entered final judgment.” Kenai 

Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240, 1262 (Alaska 2007). Therefore, the 

Smalls “forfeit[] the right to appeal” the consistency issue. Id. 

-6- 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the record shows that the court did not rule on the consistency issue because the attorney 

never properly raised it before the court. Accordingly, we conclude that Travis’ claim 

is also waived. 

B.	 The Trial Court’s Failure To Raise The Inconsistent Verdict Issue Sua 

Sponte Was Not Plain Error. 

When, as here, an appellant did not raise and litigate a claim before the trial 

court, the claim can survive on appeal only if this court finds plain error.8 “This standard 

imposes a heavy burden on appellants . . . .”9 We conclude that the trial court did not 

plainly err in failing to vacate the jury verdicts sua sponte and grant a new trial because 

no “obvious mistake has been made” that would “create[] a high likelihood that injustice 

has resulted.”10 

We see no obvious mistake in the jury’s decision to award Kenisha past 

medical expenses and past pain and suffering without future medical expenses. The jury 

was instructed to award damages for a future medical expense only if the expense was 

reasonably necessary and reasonably certain to occur, and if the evidence provided a 

reasonable basis for estimating the amount of the expense. But the jury heard conflicting 

testimony as to the necessity of Kenisha’s future surgery. It would not be inconsistent 

for a jury to conclude that Kenisha was entitled to past medical expenses from the 

accident but that her future medical expenses were not awardable based on the 

instruction. 

We also see no obvious mistake in the jury’s decision to award Travis past 

pain and suffering without past medical expenses. The jury was provided an exhibit 

8 D.J. v. P.C., 36 P.3d 663, 667-68 (Alaska 2001). 

9 Shields v. Cape Fox Corp., 42 P.3d 1083, 1087 (Alaska 2002). 

10 D.J., 36 P.3d at 668. 

-7-	 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

showing all of Travis’s past medical expenses, but the jury was told it could award only 

a portion of these expenses.11 The jury was also told that the non-awardable medical 

expenses were listed for consideration in awarding non-economic damages, such as pain 

and suffering. Based on these instructions, it would not be inconsistent for the jury to 

concludethat Travis incurred non-economicdamages based solely on thenon-awardable 

medical expenses. 

C.	 The Smalls Waived Their Argument That The Verdicts Were Against 

The Weight Of The Evidence Because They Did Not Challenge The 

Jury Verdicts Before The Trial Court. 

We have stated that “[w]here a challenge to the amount of damages has not 

been raised in the trial court, ‘we may refuse to review the issue or we may, in our 

discretion, review the award.’ ”12 The Smalls argue on appeal that the jury’s failure to 

award any future damages to Kenisha is contrary to the weight of the evidence showing 

that she would need future surgery costing $61,000. They further argue that the jury’s 

failure to award past medical expenses to Travis is contrary to the weight of the evidence 

showing that Travis required and received medical treatment for his injuries caused by 

the accident. But the record shows that the Smalls did not challenge the jury verdicts in 

11 This is because the Smalls’ insurer had already reimbursed a portion of 

Travis’s past medical expenses and directed the Smalls not to pursue recovery from 

Sayre. See Ruggles ex rel. Estate of Mayer v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999). 

12 Dixon v. Blackwell, 298 P.3d 185, 189 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Murray v. 

Feight, 741 P.2d 1148, 1160 (Alaska 1987)). 

-8-	 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any way, including motions for a directed verdict or a new trial.13 Thus, the Smalls have 

waived their right to direct review of the sufficiency of the jury verdicts. 

D.	 The Verdicts Were Not So Grossly Inadequate As To Constitute Plain 

Error. 

When, as here, a challenge to the amount of damages has been waived at 

trial, we may nonetheless choose to “examine whether [the] ‘damages awarded . . . were 

so grossly inadequate as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.’ ”14 When doing so, we 

“necessarily consider[] hypothetical explanations for the jury’s determination. 

Otherwise, we would not be able to review verdicts at all.”15 Applying this standard, we 

conclude that neither Kenisha’s verdict nor Travis’s was so grossly inadequate as to 

constitute plain error. 

With respect to Kenisha’s verdict, the jury heard conflicting evidence 

regarding both Kenisha’s need for future back surgery and, if it were needed, whether 

that need was caused by the accident. Given this testimony, the jury could have 

reasonably concluded either that Kenisha did not need the surgery or that her need for 

the surgery was not caused by the accident. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict declining to 

award future medical expenses was not grossly inadequate. 

There was even stronger support for Travis’s verdict. First, the jury was 

instructed that it could award less than half of Travis’s past medical expenses, but the 

13 This fact distinguishes the present case from Grant v. Stoyer. 10 P.3d 594 

(Alaska 2000). In that case we reviewed the superior court’s denial of the plaintiff’s 

motion to vacate the verdict and order a new trial. Id. at 596. Because the Smalls did not 

move for a new trial, we apply the more stringent standard of Dixon. 298 P.3d at 189. 

14 Dixon, 298 P.3d at 189 (quoting Heacock v. Town, 419 P.2d 622, 624 

(Alaska 1966)). 

15 Nelson v. Progressive Corp., 976 P.2d 859, 864 (Alaska 1999) (quoting 

Diamond v. Wagstaff, 873 P.2d 1286, 1290 (Alaska 1994)). 

-9-	 7134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jury was told it could consider the total amount of medical expenses in its deliberations. 

This instruction alone could justify a verdict awarding pain and suffering without 

awarding any past medical expenses. Second, the jury heard testimony about two prior 

car accidents and prior workplace and military service injuries for which Travis had 

sought medical treatment before the accident; the jury could have attributed his ongoing 

treatment to these prior injuries rather than the accident.16 Finally, the jury was presented 

with inconsistencies between the medical history that Travis claimed to have provided 

to his doctors and the information contained in his medical records, which could have 

created credibility issues reasonably leading the jury to reduce the award. Accordingly, 

the verdict awarding past pain and suffering to Travis without awarding past medical 

expenses was not grossly inadequate. 

V. CONCLUSION 

We therefore AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment upholding the jury 

verdicts. 

16 The Smalls argue that this conclusion would violate AS 09.17.080(a) 

because the jury did not apportion damages between this accident and Travis’s prior 

accidents. But AS 09.17.080(a) asks juries to apportion damages between parties, and 

Sayre was the only party in this action. 

-10- 7134