The test is "whether the answers to the special verdict questions can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences." Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986). Answers to special-verdict questions will only be set aside "when perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence."

Thus, even if the district court had erred, the error was not prejudicial. See Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 921-22 (Minn.App. 1986) (holding that exclusion of evidence was not prejudicial when other similar evidence had been admitted and excluded evidence would be cumulative). Gibson also argues that the error was prejudicial because "introduction of the reports would have contradicted [DK's] assertion that Supplee was insolvent for the entire final year of its operation.

See Raze v. Mueller, 587 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (Minn. 1999) (jury could have concluded that some of the current problems were from a pre-existing condition); see also Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986) (jury given wide deference to determine adequate compensation). Appellant also contends that it was inherently contradictory for the jury to find that appellant suffered a permanent injury, but not award damages for future medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering.

Damages are fact questions for the jury to decide based on the evidence, and wide deference is accorded a jury's conclusion as to how much money will adequately compensate a plaintiff. Koehler v. Kline, 290 Minn. 485, 487, 185 N.W.2d 539, 541 (1971); Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986). Likewise, a trial court exercises discretion in granting or denying remittitur, and appellate courts will not reverse unless there was "a clear abuse of discretion."

"The test is whether the answers to the special verdict questions can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences." Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986). Appellant argues that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering and its "inadequate" award for loss of earnings requires a new trial.

Answers to special verdict questions will be set aside only when the answers cannot be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and the fair inferences therefrom. Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986). The district court's decision whether to grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Advanced Training Sys.,Inc. v. Caswell Equip. Co., 352 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 1984).

The test is whether the answers [to the special verdict questions] can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155, 152 N.W.2d 63, 66 (1967); see alsoLutterman v. Studer, 300 Minn. 507, 510, 217 N.W.2d 756, 759 (1974) (quoting test from Reese); Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing, 490 N.W.2d 138, 142 (Minn.App. 1992) (same); Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1986) (same). The trial court refused to set aside the jury's answers to the special verdict, ruling that because of the weather and road conditions the jury could have found that Bahr's negligence was not a direct cause of the collision.

The jury's decision is entitled to wide deference as long as it is within the range of reasonable awards. See Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Nelson v. Henning, 354 N.W.2d 35, 42 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). In Sieren v. American Family Financial Services, 356 N.W.2d 408 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), this court reversed a remittitur of punitive damages because the trial court's memorandum revealed its decision was based on an erroneous view of the law.

An answer to a special verdict question will be set aside only when perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence. Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). The test is whether the answer can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.