What is the range of noneconomic damages awarded in a personal injury case?

To the extent appellants contend there is insufficient evidence to support the amount of the noneconomic damages, the amount of such damages is left to the sound discretion of the trier of fact, here the court. (See, e.g., Beagle v. Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 172, 53 Cal.Rptr. 129, 417 P.2d 673 [" [t]ranslating pain and anguish into dollars can, at best, be only an arbitrary allowance, and not a process of measurement "; the trier of fact must " allow such amount as in [its] discretion [it considers] reasonable " for that purpose]; Loth, supra , 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 768, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 571 ; see also CACI No. 3905A ["No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of these noneconomic damages. You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense"].) Appellants have failed to offer any argument that setting the amount of non-economic damages here was an abuse of discretion, that is, outside the bounds of reason and common sense.

B. There Are No Comparable Civil Penalty Provisions.

We skip next to the third guidepost, which directs us to "consider the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. " ( Roby , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 718, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749.) " The rationale for this consideration is that, if the penalties for comparable misconduct are much less than a punitive damages award, the tortfeasor lacked fair notice that the wrongful conduct could entail a sizable punitive damages award. " ( Grassilli v. Barr (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1290, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 715.)