Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence in a federal diversity case after their cars collided and Plaintiff suffered severe injuries. Instructing the jury at the close of the case, the judge stated: (1) "if you find that the defendant was a contributing cause of the plaintiff's injuries, you must award full damages"; and (2) "if you find that the defendant was a contributing cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but that plaintiff's own negligence also contributed to her injuries, then you must reduce the damages in proportion to the plaintiff's negligence." The jury returned a $1 million verdict for Plaintiff, but the verdict did not reveal which instruction the jury followed. Defendant did not raise any objections to the jury instructions at the jury charge conference held by the judge.

If Defendant files a Rule 59 motion for a new trial challenging the jury instructions as internally inconsistent, how should the court rule?

(A)

The court should deny Defendant's motion because it is not an error for the judge to give inconsistent jury instructions.

(B)

The court should grant Defendant's motion because Defendant never had a chance to object to the instructions.

(C)

The court should deny Defendant's motion because Defendant did not raise a timely objection to the instructions.

(D)

The court should grant Defendant's motion because the judge committed a procedural error by giving internally inconsistent jury instructions.