In Bigboy v. County of San Diego (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 397, 201 Cal. Rptr. 226, the plaintiff was awarded a verdict of $ 2.25 million for severe and permanent injuries he suffered in an automobile accident. The court, despite having previously declared that the evidence would have supported a larger verdict, denied a new trial motion on the condition plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the damages to $ 1.75 million. In its order, the court stated only that the verdict was excessive when compared to other verdicts in similar cases, and that it attributed the size of the award to defendant's "indefensible" position and plaintiffs "unusual appeal." (Bigboy v. County of San Diego, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 402-403.) In rejecting the new trial order, the Court of Appeal in Bigboy noted, "It is helpful if the court declares what witnesses it believed, what testimony was to be disregarded or the value of any impeachment. The court should set forth how it arrives at a lower figure. The court should briefly identify criticized evidence. Citation. A general statement one figure is too high and another figure too low is insufficient. Citation." (Bigboy v. County of San Diego, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at p. 404.) In sum, the trial court, in granting a new trial, relied upon legally invalid reasons, including the court's "personal opinion based on the ranges of awards in other cases." ( Id. at p. 407.) There was no statement in the new trial order in Bigboy which would have permitted the appellate court to determine whether the "'jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.'" ( Id. at p. 406.) Bigboy thus does not say that any consideration of other verdicts is never proper; indeed, we read in the decision an implicit acceptance of the proposition that the order in issue would have been upheld, notwithstanding the court's review of other verdicts, if it had contained a reference to any "portion of the evidence" supporting a new trial on the ground of excessive damages. (Ibid.)