What is the test for a motion for a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by a jury in a motor vehicle accident case are inadequate?

In Phillips v. Lyon, 109 Cal.App. 264, 268, 292 P. 711, it is said that it is difficult to determine just what state of facts will warrant a trial court in setting aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that the award is inadequate or what record will justify an appellate court in reversing a judgment on that ground.

In passing upon a motion for a new trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence, it is the exclusive province of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, determine the probative force of testimony, and weigh the evidence. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence upon such motion the court may draw inferences opposed to those drawn at the trial, and where the only conflicts consist of inferences deduced from uncontradicted probative facts, the court may resolve such conflicts in determining whether the case should be retried. It is only where it can be said as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence to support a contrary judgment that an appellate court will reverse the order of the trial court. Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305, 307, 163 P.2d 689.

In Amavisca v. City of Merced, 149 Cal.App.2d 481, 308 P.2d 380, it was held that a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is inadequate, appeals peculiarly to the discretion of the trial court, and its order should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and that upon a motion for a new trial based upon [163 Cal.App.2d 109] the contention that the damages are inadequate, the trial court should review the evidence, not only with respect to the issue of damages but also with respect to the issue of liability.