What is the test for a motion for a new trial when the trial judge said that the damages were inadequate as a matter of law?

Based on this statement, appellants argue that the trial court erroneously believed that it was required to deny the motion for a new trial unless "the damages were inadequate as a matter of law." "[W]here the comments of the trial judge indicate that he misconceived his duty at the hearing on the motion for new trial, an appellate court will not blindly affirm the judgment below because there is some evidence to support it [citations]." (Lippold v. Hart (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 24, 26.)