Small v. Sayre, 384 P.3d 785

In Nov. 2011 Austin Sayre rear‑ended a car driven by Travis Small; passengers were his wife Kenisha and daughter Khanya. All three sought medical care and later sued Sayre for negligence and damages.
Sayre conceded negligence but disputed causation and damages; the Smalls’ insurer had paid part of medical bills and the trial court barred recovery of amounts the insurer had reimbursed (subrogation issue).
A jury found Sayre’s negligence was a substantial factor causing injury to Travis and Kenisha but not Khanya, and returned limited awards: Kenisha — $2,000 past economic and $4,000 past non‑economic; Travis — $4,000 past non‑economic only.
The Smalls did not move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, resubmission, or a new trial after the jury was discharged; before verdict reading there was a brief, informal discussion about whether awarding pain and suffering without medical expenses would be inconsistent.
On appeal the Smalls challenged (1) the alleged inconsistency in awarding Kenisha no future medical expenses despite past medical damages, and (2) the award to Travis of pain and suffering but no past medical expenses. Sayre argued those challenges were waived for failure to preserve them below.
The Alaska Supreme Court held the Smalls waived preservation of the issues and, even under plain‑error review, found no plain error or grossly inadequate awards; the judgment affirming the jury verdicts was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the verdicts were impermissibly inconsistent (pain & suffering awarded but no medical expenses)	The Smalls: jury awards were inconsistent (Kenisha and Travis should have had future or past medical expenses awarded consistent with pain & suffering)	Sayre: inconsistency claim was waived because Smalls failed to raise it before jury discharge or move for new trial	Waived: Smalls failed to preserve the inconsistency claim; no plain error shown; verdicts not inconsistent given jury instructions and evidence
Whether the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence / grossly inadequate	The Smalls: evidence showed Kenisha needed surgery costing ~$61,000 and Travis had past medical treatment — verdicts insufficient	Sayre: sufficiency claim waived for failure to move for new trial or otherwise challenge damages below; alternative explanations supported jury choices	Waived: Smalls failed to preserve; under miscarriage‑of‑justice review, awards were not so grossly inadequate to constitute plain error

Ruggles ex rel. Estate of Mayer v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509 (Alaska 1999) (insurer’s subrogated claim belongs to insurer and insurer may direct not to pursue recovery)
Nelson v. Progressive Corp., 976 P.2d 859 (Alaska 1999) (party waives right to challenge jury verdict consistency if not raised before discharge)
D.J. v. P.C., 36 P.3d 663 (Alaska 2001) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
Dixon v. Blackwell, 298 P.3d 185 (Alaska 2013) (reviewing waived damages claims and standard for miscarriage of justice review)
Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240 (Alaska 2007) (must insist on ruling to preserve appellate review; forfeiture where party fails to seek ruling)