In Clifford v. Ruocco (1952) 39 Cal.2d 327, the court found the evidence established without contradiction the extent of the injuries and the amount of damages. Based on those undisputed facts, the court found the damages inadequate as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the court was not convinced that the evidence of negligence was overwhelming, and therefore it remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages. There were no facts presented in Clifford involving a preexisting injury or secondary cause of the damages. Rather, the court intimated that the amount of damages could have been the result of a compromise verdict. On those facts, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for a new trial limited only to damages.