What is a wrongful death case worth? l Seattle, Washington Injury & Wrongful Death Lawyer

This is a sensitive subject.  But a question we hear alot at the Davis Law Group regarding wrongful death claims is “What is the case worth?”  This may not be an easy question to answer, at least not without investigating the case and sorting through the myriad of legal issues that may be present.

First, there is no amount of money that will ever compensate family members for the loss of a loved one.  Most people will agree that money is not adequate “compensation,” it does not make the situation “fair” or “right,” and it certainly will never make up for such a tragic loss.  If someone is responsible for totally destroying your car, the car can be replaced.  A person cannot. There simply is no replacement for losing a child, parent, spouse or sibling. 

Second, the value of a wrongful death claim is not necessarily the value of the person who died.  You must distinguish the difference between the value of a “claim” and the value of a “person.”  Several times I have had a surviving child, parent, spouse or sibling say to me after being presented with a settlement offer from a defendant, “Is that all they think my loved one is worth?”  Even though I have discussed the value of a “claim” versus the value of a “person” before settlement negotiations, it is still difficult for survivors to understand this concept.  This is especially true if the settlement offer is low, but not necessarily unreasonable given the facts involved, the asserted defenses and/or the other difficulties associated with the case.

To help illustrate how the presence or absence of certain facts can affect case value, let’s discuss some examples.  In each of the follow three scenarios I will use the tragic death of a relatively normal seven (7) year-old boy who I’ll call Jimmy as our subject.

Example A:  Jimmy is crossing the street in a crosswalk with a green light in his direction of travel with his mother holding his hand.  When they are nearly across the street, with their light still green, a heavily intoxicated beer delivery truck driver, while on the job, driving his beer truck, runs the red light striking and killing Jimmy.  It is the fourth time the driver has been caught drinking on the job in the last year.

Example B:  Jimmy is crossing the street in a crosswalk with a green light in his direction of travel with his mother holding his hand.  When they are nearly across the street, with their light still green, an unemployed 65-year-old grandmother, on her way to deliver food baskets to the poor, runs the red light striking and killing Jimmy.  The grandmother has an automobile insurance policy with coverage of $25,000 and no assets.

Example C:  Jimmy is playing soccer in the park.  Jimmy chases the soccer ball out of the park, across a sidewalk, across the parkway, between two cars parked close together and into the street immediately in front of a car traveling at 20 mile per hour.  The driver of the car, a 65-year-old grandmother on her way to deliver food baskets to the poor, hits Jimmy and kills him.  The grandmother is hysterical at the scene.  She tells police that she had no chance to avoid hitting Jimmy because he “came out of nowhere.”

In Example A the beer truck driver is obviously at fault.  His employer is going to be held responsible for the driver’s actions.  The employer is a large corporation and has nearly limitless resources to pay damages in this case.  Juries are usually prejudiced against intoxicated drivers, people who run red lights, and against large alcoholic beverage corporations who hire unsafe drivers.  One might easily assume that the jury will probably want to “punish” the beer distributor for continuing to employee a driver who drinks on the job.  The case may be worth several millions of dollars in many jurisdictions.

In Example B the 65-year-old grandmother is obviously at fault.  However, this defendant is much more sympathetic than the corporate alcohol distributor.  Plus, the grandmother only has insurance coverage of just $25,000, which is the most that a lawyer may be able to collect from her.  Even if you go to trial and get a much higher jury verdict, the grandmother has no money or assets to pay it.  Plus the trial and litigation expenses of going to trial against the grandmother will likely easily exceed $25,000, so a recovery will be used to reimburse costs.

In Example C, Jimmy is likely at fault or at least shares a good portion of fault.  Plus the grandmother is a sympathetic defendant.  A jury might have more compassion and understanding for the grandmother than the parents of the boy that was killed.  A jury might determine the boy was 100% at fault.  Thus, the value of the wrongful death claim brought by Jimmy’s parents might be worth nothing at all.

In each of the examples, we have the same young boy who dies.  His parents suffer the same and each has lost the same, regardless of the other factual differences in each example.  However, the value of the parents’ case in Example A is likely worth millions of dollars.  The case in Example B is likely worth only $25,000 (plus any underinsured motorist coverage that may exist).  The case in Example C is probably worth nothing at all.

Keep in mind that the examples above are simplistic so that you can easily see how the existence of certain facts may radically change the value of a case.  In any given case there may exist dozens of other important facts or legal issues that may also affect the value of that case. 

Let’s look at Example C again.  Now assume that Jimmy’s parents promptly hired a lawyer who in turn retained an accident reconstruction expert to analyze the accident.  That expert goes to the accident scene within days and based on the length of the vehicle skid marks and other evidence collected, determines that the grandmother was actually traveling 50 mph – twice the legal speed limit.   Even if Jimmy popped out of nowhere, the grandmother was speeding too fast and will likely share as much if not more blame than Jimmy for causing his death.  This additional new fact now changes how strong of a case Jimmy’s parents will have against the grandmother.  If the grandmother also has insurance much greater than $25,000, the wrongful death case may be worth much more than this amount. 

Keep in mind that the examples above are simplistic so that you can easily see how the existence of certain facts may radically change the value of a case.  In any given case there may exist dozens of other important facts or legal issues that may also affect the value of that case.  For example, in Example C let’s assume that Jimmy’s parents promptly hired a lawyer who in turn retained an accident reconstruction expert to analyze the accident.  That expert goes to the accident scene within days and based on the length of the vehicle skid marks and other evidence collected, determines that the grandmother was actually traveling 50 mph – twice the legal speed limit.   Even if Jimmy popped out of nowhere, the grandmother was speeding too fast and like shares as much if not more blame than Jimmy for causing his death.  This additional fact now changes how strong of a case Jimmy’s parents will have against the grandmother.  If the grandmother also has insurance much greater than $25,000, the wrongful death case may be worth much more than this amount. 

Remember, a wrongful death attorney’s job is to evaluate how the facts and legal issues will impact case value, and then discuss his or her evaluation with the client.  But sometimes the attorney needs to conduct more investigation, like hire experts or take depositions, before an accurate and reliable opinion regarding case value can be made.  It usually pays to hire an experienced attorney to investigate the claim, and do whatever is reasonably necessary to maximum the chances of success.