The appellant, Jody Hager, seeks reversal of two orders entered by the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia. Following a trial on liability and damages for personal injuries, the judge refused to accept the verdict of the jury regarding the appellee, Lori Toler. Instead, the judge gave the jury unsolicited instructions on damages and returned the jury to the jury room three times to reconsider before accepting the verdict. The judgment order, entered on December 8, 1997, awarded the appellee, Lori Toler, $2042.00 for medical expenses and $100.00 for pain and suffering. The appellant moved to reinstate the original jury verdict. The appellee moved for a new trial on damages for pain and suffering, which was granted in a post-trial order entered on April 27, 1998. The appellant seeks to have the original jury verdict reinstated; in the alternative, the appellant requests that the order awarding a new trial be reversed and that the judgment order be reinstated. We believe the circuit court invaded the province of the jury, and therefore, we reverse both orders and reinstate the original jury verdict. However, the parties are not foreclosed from seeking a new trial.
I.
FACTS
On January 23, 1996, Mary Burgess, her five-year-old son, David, and stepdaughter, Lori Toler, were traveling on Route 10 near Lyburn in Logan County, West Virginia. Mary Burgess was driving a 1989 Oldsmobile Cutlass; David was riding in the back seat; the appellee was a front seat passenger. While attempting to make a left turn, Burgess stopped to allow a vehicle to exit the road she wished to enter. After starting-forward again, Burgess stopped suddenly and was bumped from behind by a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck driven by the appellant. There is no dispute that the vehicles suffered minimal damage and the police were not called to the scene.
Later that afternoon, Burgess, her son, and the appellee went to the emergency room at Logan General Hospital. 1 Six days later, the appellee was still complaining of pain in her neck and back. She made an office visit to Dr. Ramanaban Padmanaban, an orthopedic surgeon at Logan General Hospital. Toler was diagnosed with a “cervical and upper and lower back strain” with no neurological deficit. The doctor testified at trial that the appellee was not suffering from muscle spasms, but, upon examination, she stated that her muscles were sore. Dr. Pad-manaban prescribed Darvocet, an anti-inflammatory medication and muscle relaxants. The appellee next visited Dr. Padmanaban on February 12, 1996. During that visit, she complained of “pain, soreness and stiffness in the neck, soreness and stiffness in the back, also.” Dr. Padmanaban prescribed physical therapy, which was provided at Logan General Hospital. Dr. Padmanaban testified that on the fourth and last visit, the appellee *473 “had an excellent range of motion in the neck and back. There was no restrictions. — She was released from therapy. Since she was having no problem and there was no neurological deficit, I released her to come back and see me on a necessary basis.” The appellee was released from treatment at that time and did not return to the doctor.
Burgess and Toler filed personal actions against Hager. The actions were consolidated for trial. At trial, the following question was posed to Dr. Padmanaban by the appel-lee’s attorney: “Is it your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that, based upon the history that Lori Toler gave you, your examinations of her and test results, that the diagnosis of neck and low back strain was caused by the traffic accident?” The doctor answered that it was his opinion that if Toler had experienced no other injuries, “then from the history and examination, the problem she had was caused by the aecident[.]” Dr. Padmanaban believes Toler suffers from no permanent injury.
Besides hearing Dr. Padmanaban’s testimony, the jury viewed the video testimony of the appellant’s expert, Dr. Paul Bachwitt, an orthopedic surgeon, and heard the testimony of the appellant’s accident reconstructionist, Dr. Craig Depkin. The jury saw photographs of the damage to the vehicles following the collision.
Dr. Bachwitt testified that he examined the appellee on March 10, 1997. Dr. Ba-chwitt noted that Dr. Padmanaban released the appellee from treatment on March 25, 1996 with excellent range of motion in the back and neck with no neurological deficit. She was released with no restrictions. Dr. Bachwitt reviewed Logan General Hospital’s x-rays and reports and then proceeded to take his own x-rays of the appellee’s neck and back. Dr. Bachwitt saw no abnormalities in the cervical spine or the lumbar spine. The doctor testified that upon examination of the appellee, the results of the testing differed depending on whether the appellee understood she was being tested or whether the test was performed as a distraction test. He stated, “This is contradictory and not explainable by orthopedic injury or pathology, either one.” The doctor “saw no objective evidence why she should complain of stiffness in the neck and low back.” Dr. Bachwitt testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty he felt the appellee did not suffer a permanent injury in the motor vehicle accident, was not disabled for any significant period of time and would require no future medical treatment or care.
Dr. Bachwitt further testified that the ap-pellee told him she was attending college at the time of the accident and had missed no classes; she was also able to clean her house and dress and care for herself with no assistance. Dr. Bachwitt disagreed with Dr. Pad-manaban’s diagnosis of neck and back strain; Dr. Bachwitt testified that in his professional opinion he did not believe the appellee stretched the muscles in her neck or back from such a slight impact. However, he agreed it was not unreasonable to treat an individual’s subjective complaints.
Dr. Depkin, a mechanical engineer, was called by the defense to testify as an accident reconstructionist. He testified that the damage to the two vehicles involved in the accident was so minimal that accident reconstruction was not possible; rather, an impact analysis was performed. He stated that at the time of impact, the acceleration in the front to rear direction of the head of the occupants of the Oldsmobile was the type of acceleration that people experience when rising from a sitting to a standing position. He also testified that immediately prior to impact, the pickup was traveling two and one-half miles per hour.
At the close of the trial, the only question presented to the jury on the verdict form relating to the appellee was the assessment of damages. The question was presented in the following manner:
5. We, the jury, assess damages to the Plaintiff, Lori Toler, as follows:
Medical Expenses, travel and other expenses to date: _
Pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life to date: _
Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the jury returned a verdict of $0 for the appellee. This was a verdict for the defendant which the judge refused to accept. *474 Instead, the judge informed the jury, “The Court cannot accept the verdict forms as submitted, and will have to resubmit the matter to the jury for the completion of part No. 5.” The jury deliberated and returned a verdict of $53.00 in medical expenses and $0 for pain and suffering. The judge responded by stating, “I must inform the jury that, once again, I cannot accept the verdict form as submitted. The matters or the amounts set forth in item No. 5 are insufficient as a matter of law, so I’ll have to resubmit this for further consideration. You will be instructed to continue your deliberations.” The jury again deliberated and awarded Toler $2042.00 for medical expenses and $0 for pain and suffering. Upon receiving the verdict, the judge stated, “Members of the panel, I can now accept the verdict form on the first part of question No. 5, but not on the second part, so I’ll have to send you back for additional work on the second part of question No. 5.” The jury once again deliberated and awarded Toler $2042.00 for medical expenses and $100.00 for pain and suffering. The judge finally responded by stating, “The Court would find that the verdict form would be acceptable. I’ll read the verdict.”
Hager filed a motion for reinstatement of the original jury verdict. Following the hearing, the court entered judgment on the jury’s fourth verdict, noting the parties’ objections, thereby implicitly denying Hager’s motion. Toler then filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the pain and suffering award was inadequate. On April 27,1998, the court entered an order which states that “the Motion for a New Trial is hereby granted on the basis that the jury’s award for pain and suffering is inadequate; the Court does further ORDER and ADJUDGE that this matter will be set for trial upon the issue of damages.” Hager appeals from these orders.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The circuit court found the verdict was insufficient as a matter of law and instructed the jury to continue deliberating on three separate occasions. “This Court reviews the circuit court’s final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed
de novo.”
Syllabus Point 4,
Burgess v. Porterfield,
The trial court also granted a new trial on the issue of pain and suffering.
A motion for a new trial is governed by a different standard than a motion for a directed verdict. When a trial judge vacates a jury verdict and awards a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge has the authority to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the trial judge finds the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, the trial judge may set aside the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and grant a new trial. A trial judge’s decision to award a new trial is not subject to appellate review unless the trial judge abuses his or her discretion.
Syllabus Point 3,
In re State Public Bldg. Asbestos Litigation,
III.
PROVINCE OF THE JURY
On appeal, the appellant argues that because the question of damages is a question for the jury, and in this case, the jury’s original verdict was in proper form and was supported by the evidence, the circuit court erred by entering the judgment order and by denying his motion for reinstatement. Alternatively, the appellant argues that even if the original jury verdict is incorrect, the judgment order’s nominal award for pain and suffering is adequate as a matter of law in light of the appellee’s insubstantial and temporary injury; therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the appellee a new trial. The appellee argues the circuit court did not usurp the jury’s function in setting aside the original verdict nor did the court abuse its *475 discretion in awarding a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, we believe the jury’s original verdict should be reinstated and both parties should be granted ten days in which to file a motion for a new trial.
The question we first must resolve is whether the circuit court improperly invaded the province of the jury when the judge refused to accept the jury’s original verdict for the defendant and instructed the jury to return to the jury room and, in essence, return a verdict for the plaintiff. This Court has previously said, “‘It is the peculiar and exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and to resolve questions of fact when the testimony is conflicting.’ Point 3, Syllabus,
Long v. City of Weirton,
[158] W.Va. [741], (1975)
It is a general rule that where damages are indeterminate, mere difference of opinion between the court and the jury as to what the verdict should be, will not justify the court in disturbing the verdict. To warrant such action the verdict must evince passion, prejudice, pártiality, or corruption upon the part of the jury.
Id.,
“In a case of indeterminate damages for which the law gives no specific rule of compensation, the decision of the jury upon the amount of damages is generally conclusive, unless the amount is so large or small as to induce belief that they were influenced by passion, partiality, corruption or prejudice or misled by some mistaken view of the case.” Holt v. Elevator Co.,78 W.Va. 785 ,90 S.E. 333 ,L.R.A. 1917A,1194 .
Syllabus Point 5,
Floyd v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.,
In the case sub judice, the jury considered and weighed the conflicting evidence which was presented at trial. Dr. Padmanaban testified that he believed the appellee could have suffered a neck and back strain from the accident; however, he stated there was no objective evidence upon which to base this belief, just the subjective complaints of the appellee. Dr. Bachwitt testified that he did not believe the appellee’s neck and back could have been injured from such a slight impact. Dr. Depkin testified regarding the effect the impact an accident such as this would have on the occupants of the Oldsmobile; that is, the type of acceleration people experience when rising from a sitting position. Dr. Depkin also stated that in numerous test accidents similar to this accident, none of the participants experienced strain or sprain or complained of injury. The disputed question in this case was not, as the circuit court supposed, the amount of damages the appellee should be awarded. Rather, the issue was whether the appellee was injured at all as a result of the accident. Apparently no expert proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the appellee sustained an injury for which she deserved to be compensated. The judge cannot substitute his opinion for that of the jury merely because he disagrees.
Under the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have found for either party. This Court has previously said, “A jury’s verdict is accorded great deference when it involves the jury weighing conflicting evidence[.]”
McNeely v. Frich,
*476 “When a case involving conflicting testimony and circumstances has been fairly tried, under proper instructions, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside unless plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence or without sufficient evidence to support it.” Point 4, Syllabus, Laslo v. Griffith,143 W.Va. 469 ,102 S.E.2d 894 .
Syllabus Point 2,
Walker v. Monongahela Power Co.,
In other words, “To weigh the evidence and to resolve questions of fact when the oral testimony of witnesses regarding them is conflicting is peculiarly the province of the jury and should not be disturbed by the court.”
Yuncke,
If there is a conflict in the testimony on a material point, or if reasonable men may differ in their conclusions of fact to be drawn from the evidence, or if the conclusion is dependent on the weight to be given the testimony, the trial judge cannot substitute his conclusion for that of the jury merely because he would have voted for a different verdict if he had been on the jury. The weight of a jury’s verdict, when there is credible evidence upon which it can be based, is not overborne by the trial judge’s disapproval.
Commonwealth v. McNeely,
This case involved conflicting testimony from which reasonable people could have differed in the conclusions of fact they drew from the evidence and it had been fairly tried under proper instructions. The original verdict was regular in form and was signed by the foreman and represented the final agreement of the jury. Therefore, the verdict of the jury should not have been set aside unless the judge determined the verdict was plainly contrary to the evidence or had no evidence to support it. The judge made no such finding. The record submitted on appeal is devoid of any indication that the judge believed the jury’s original verdict “evince[d] passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption upon the part of the jury” or was plainly wrong. Apparently the judge simply disagreed with the jury’s opinion and, as a result, refused to accept their verdict. Instead, he substituted his conclusion for that of the jury.
Also, the evidence presented in this case must be viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant (defendant below). This Court has previously said, “In an appeal from an allegedly inadequate damage award, the evidence concerning damages is to be viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant.” Syllabus Point 1,
Kaiser v. Hensley,
In determining whether the verdict of a jury is supported by the evidence, every reasonable and legitimate inference, fairly arising from the evidence in favor of the party for whom the verdict was returned, must be considered, and those facts, which the jury might properly find under the evidence, must be assumed as true.
*477
Syllabus Point 3,
Walker v. Monongahela Power Co.,
“ ‘In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved.’ Syl. pt. 5, Orr v. Crowder,173 W.Va. 335 ,315 S.E.2d 593 (1983), cert. denied,469 U.S. 981 ,105 S.Ct. 384 ,83 L.Ed.2d 319 (1984).” Syl. Pt. 6, McClung v. Marion County Comm’n,178 W.Va. 444 ,360 S.E.2d 221 (1987).
Syllabus Point 2,
Tanner v. Rite Aid of West Virginia, Inc.,
We are aware that “ ‘[w]here a verdict does not include elements of damage which are specifically proved in
uncontroverted
amounts and a substantial amount as compensation for injuries and the consequent pain and suffering, the verdict is inadequate and will be set aside.
Hall v. Groves,
In the case of
Hewett v. Frye,
In Kaiser, we encountered a situation similar to the one presented in this case. Special damages had been contested by the appellees in Kaiser on the ground that there was no substantial causal relationship between the appellee’s negligence and the injury allegedly sustained. We stated that resolution of such contested issues was within the province of the jury, and that the “judgments brought by the jury evidently represented their resolution of this conflict.” Kaiser,318 S.E.2d at 599 .
Id.,
Viewed most strongly in favor of the appel-lee, the evidence permits a conclusion by the jury that the appellant’s psychological and mental disturbances were not causally related to the accident.... Consequently, we cannot conclude that the jury’s failure to award damages for mental anguish renders the verdict inadequate as a matter of law.
Id.,
Another case with similarities to the case at bar is
Haight v. Goin,
In the case presently before us, the evidence as to whether or not Toler was injured at all in the accident is strongly controverted and there were no stipulations. Damages were contested by the appellant’s presentation of evidence in the form of testimony of an orthopedic surgeon and an accident reconstructionist who disputed whether the ailments complained of by the appellee were caused by the collision. Viewed most strongly in favor of the appellant, the evidence permits a conclusion by the jury that the appellee was not injured in this slight accident. Consequently, we cannot conclude the jury’s failure to award damages renders the verdict inadequate as a matter of law.
This is not to say that the judge in a civil case can never send the jury back to the jury room to reconsider before accepting the verdict. This Court has stated:
A judge of any trial court has the power and the authority, and it is his duty, before discharging the jury, to correct any irregularity, eliminate any surplusage, or amend the form of a verdict of the jury upon the trial of any case, when such action is necessary or proper and does not change the substance, finding or effect of the verdict.
Syllabus Point 2,
Crawford v. Coiner,
In
Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc.,
In
Kuhn v. Cooper,
In
Long v. City of Weirton,
In
Carter v. Jones,
It is not reversible error for a trial court to refuse to accept a verdict, or to direct the jury to return to the jury room and consider further of their verdict, after the return of a verdict based on a condition which renders it of such doubtful meaning ’ that a proper judgment can not be rendered thereon.
Syllabus Point 1, Carter, id. The original verdict returned by the jury in the case at bar was not confusing or doubtful; in fact, it was abundantly clear. The circuit court simply refused to accept it.
In
Fortner v. Napier,
in this action in view of the fact that each of the prepared verdicts was signed by the jury foreman, all of the members of the jury were asked if such was their verdict, all answered in the affirmative and, inasmuch as this procedure took place before the jury was discharged, particularly in view of the fact that counsel for the defendant made no objection to the procedure followed by the able trial judge.
Id.,
In the interest of judicial economy, circuit courts should make every effort to correct defective or faulty verdicts and, thereby, avoid costly and time consuming retrials. With this in mind, however, we caution circuit courts not to usurp the function of the jury where the evidence is conflicting or controverted. A circuit judge cannot refuse to accept a proper and regular verdict for a party and send the jury back to ■the jury room with instructions to return a *480 verdict for another party. That is essentially what happened in this case. If judges are permitted to do this simply because they disagree with the jury’s verdict, we do not need juries. Since the first verdict returned by the jury in this case was a verdict for the defendant, in proper form, nondefective and comported with valid evidence adduced by the defendant, the judgment order of the circuit court is hereby reversed and the court is instructed to enter an order reinstating the original verdict returned by the jury.
IV.
A NEW TRIAL
The trial court granted a new trial on the issue of pain and suffering. We previously stated that we will not reverse a trial judge’s decision to award a new trial unless the judge abuses his or her discretion. The judge based this order on the fourth jury verdict, believing that $100.00 for pain and suffering is inadequate if medical damages equal $2042.00. As the judge invaded the province of the jury in getting the medical damages award and we are reversing and reinstating the original jury verdict of $0, we find the trial court abused its discretion in making this decision. The April 27, 1998 order awarding a new trial on pain and suffering is hereby reversed.
However, we do not believe the parties should be foreclosed from seeking relief in the form of a new trial as to all of the issues previously litigated. 2 This Court has previously provided guidance to trial courts by stating,
“When a trial judge vacates a jury verdict and awards a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge has the authority to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the trial judge finds the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, the trial judge may set aside the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and grant a new trial_” Syllabus Point 3, in part, In re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation,193 W.Va. 119 ,454 S.E.2d 413 (1994).
Syllabus Point 2, in part,
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.,
V.
CONCLUSION
We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Logan County and remand this case for entry of an order reinstating the original verdict. Thereafter, the court must consider whether the original verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice and decide whether or not to vacate the jury’s verdict and grant a new trial under Rule 59 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Notes
. David settled out of court for $500.00. At trial, Burgess received nothing and is not involved in this appeal.
. If the trial judge believed the jury's original verdict for the defendant was against the clear weight of the evidence or would result in a miscarriage of justice, the judge should have set the verdict aside and granted a new trial. The verdict was not defective; it was simply a verdict for the defendant.