In Gallentine v. Richardson (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 152. the tortfeasor did not seriously dispute the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, nor did he seriously or successfully contend that the expenses incurred were not proximately caused by the gunshot wound. The court repeated the well-worn principles of appellate review of damages awarded in personal injury cases. "'"'The amount of damages in such cases is committed first to the sound discretion of the jury, and next to the discretion of the judge of the trial court, who, in ruling upon the motion for a new trial, may consider the evidence anew, determine anew the facts, and set aside the verdict if it is not just. Upon appeal, the decision of the trial court and jury on the subject cannot be set aside unless the verdict is "so plainly and outrageously excessive as to suggest, at first blush, passion or prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury." Citing cases.'"'" (Id. at p. 155.) Where, as in Gallentine, the evidence is undisputed about the extent of the plaintiff's injuries as a result of the tortfeasor's fault and a jury returns a verdict for the exact amount of special damages but awards no damages for pain and suffering, "a denial of a new trial by the trial court must be held an abuse of discretion and a judgment on a verdict in an insufficient amount may not be affirmed." (Ibid.)