One question we're asked quite often is whether Texas law says that all family members get the same amount of compensation in a wrongful death case. The answer is no.
The way wrongful death cases work under Texas law is that each of a decedent's close family members are seen as having their own individual right to pursue compensation for their own individual losses. Sure, for convenience's sake, the court incorporates all the claims into one lawsuit, but when it comes time for a jury to award compensation, they will award each family member a different amount based on the merit of each claimant's losses and suffering.
Why Does it Work This Way?
To understand how wrongful death law works in Texas, it's best to start with an understanding of how it works in other states.
In some states, the right to hold a wrongdoer accountable for killing a loved one is not an individual right possessed by the decedent's close family members, like it is in Texas. Instead, in many other states, the right to sue is more or less viewed as a right that belonged to the deceased person themselves, which is then inherited by the decedent's family members.
Or, to phrase it another way, in some states, the wrongful death case is the dead person's injury case which then gets passed to his heirs. In states that operate that way, the right to sue is treated like any other asset owned by the decedent. Much the same way that the decedent owns a TV, a car, a dog, and a bicycle, the law effectively says that they also own the right to file a lawsuit, since they were killed by the negligence of a wrongdoer. And, no different than their TV or the money in their checking account, the right to sue is passed on to their relatives when they die.
But treating the right to sue for a wrongful death as if it's a piece of property creates one considerable complication. You see, when someone dies, their next of kin indeed inherit and divide their assets. But in order to avoid a scenario where the relatives of a deceased person seize upon the estate in a feeding frenzy, with each family member taking however large a share he or she feels they're entitled to, the law requires that the division of a person's assets be overseen by an appointed representative who has a fiduciary duty to divide the assets equitably.
Likewise, when a wrongful death "right to sue" is treated as if it's one of a decedent's possessions, the personal representative of the decedent's estate is in charge of managing it as well. Therefore, in states that view the right to sue as belonging to the deceased person, only the person put in charge of the estate can pursue a wrongful death claim. Even though this person does not necessarily have a dog in the fight, they still get to make all the decisions for those that do.
Again, though, that's not how we do it in Texas. Texas wrongful death law is built on the concept that the family members who survive the decedent are the ones who own the right to sue. After all, they're the ones who suffer for years after the accident. They experience mental anguish as they live through a feeling of despair and loneliness and they are often harmed financially, especially when the family's breadwinner is the one who is killed.
Furthermore, different levels of suffering and loss are felt among the surviving family members. As such, Texas law recognizes that different family members will need to be compensated differently.
How Different Family Members Are Generally Compensated
Under Texas law, there is no hard and fast formula which dictates how much each family member should receive. Instead, each claimant must prove the merit of their particular claim, and a jury awards an amount accordingly. However, since there have been thousands of wrongful death cases throughout Texas history, there are enough data points to spots trends and form conclusions about how juries typically award compensation.
With that in mind, here are some general rules of thumb.
- Juries typically award more compensation to the decedent's spouse than anyone else. A spouse is both financially dependent upon the decedent and they suffer tremendous emotional harm as well. If Mary loses her husband Ricardo in an accident and Ricardo made $100k per year, Mary can very easily show the jury that she has been denied millions of dollars in income that her husband would have brought into their household over the course of their marriage. Therefore, without even considering an amount for her emotional distress and mental anguish, her claim is easily worth seven-figures.
- Juries typically award a considerable amount of compensation to minor children who lose a parent. Young children suffer tremendous, life-altering emotional turmoil when they lose a parent. Also, they are financially dependent upon their parents. So even though they may be awarded slightly less than a spouse, it's usually pretty close. When children do in fact receive a smaller award from a jury, this merely reflects that a child only typically has 18 years of financial dependence upon their parents, whereas a spouse faces a lifetime of financial ramifications following the death of their partner.
- Juries typically give less to adult children who lose a parent. When a grown man or woman loses a parent, juries typically view this as a serious loss that warrants considerable compensation, but it pales in comparison to what a young child would be awarded for losing a parent. The difference is that adults have already had their personalities formed, so the loss of a parent usually doesn't derail their entire life. It's undoubtedly painful and traumatizing, but not the same way that it is for, say, a five year old.
- Juries typically award limited compensation to middle-aged and elderly people who lose an adult child. For instance, if a 70-year-old woman loses a 40-year-old son in an accident, a jury would award considerably less compensation than they would to a husband who loses a wife.
- Juries tend to award considerable compensation to parents who lose minor children. If a 30-year-old mother loses an eight-year-old child, juries see this as being one of the most painful things a person can endure, so a large award is rather common.
The main takeaway from the above is that, the more emotionally damaged or financially dependent a surviving family member is upon the decedent, the larger the compensation will be for that claimant. It is important to note that this is all relative. For instance, the "lesser" amount that a 70-year-old woman may receive for losing her 40-year-old son may indeed be less than what a jury would award to his wife or his children, but it can still be a considerable sum. For instance, our firm recently litigated a case against a major trucking company wherein we represented a woman who lost her 30-year-old daughter. Even though the woman was not financially dependent upon her child, we still recovered a seven figure recovery on her behalf.
Can there be exceptions to any of the above? Certainly.
For instance, imagine that a 40-year-old man was not married and he left behind a minor child and an elderly mother when he lost his life in a work accident. The minor child was estranged and had not seen his father in years, but the elderly mother not only lived with the man, she also depended upon him financially and for assistance with her debilitating disease. Under these circumstances, a jury would likely conclude that the decedent's mother should be awarded far more than the decedent's minor child.
Or, imagine that a 20-year-old girl is killed in an accident, leaving behind only her parents. A few years prior to her death, the young woman revealed to her parents that she was a homosexual, resulting in her mother disowning her but her father accepting her the way she was. Over the next few years, her father spoke to her regularly and maintained a good relationship with her, whereas her mother pretended she didn't exist. When the case surrounding her death goes to trial, it would be a safe bet that a jury would award her father far more compensation that they would give to the mother.
The takeaway here is that the value of any particular claimant's case is based on the merit of their claim.
Things Get Tricky When There are Limited Funds
Juries don't know whether a defendant has insurance, nor do they know if the defendant is rich or poor. Juries award compensation based on how much they feel the claimants have suffered and based on the quantifiable financial impact of the loss. If the defendant in any given wrongful death case is wealthy, then a jury's verdict may indeed represent an amount that the defendant has to pay to their victims. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the defendant is not a millionaire. As such, it is very common for a careless person who kills someone to cause millions of dollars in losses without having the ability to pay millions of dollars.
When this happens, it's best to think of a jury verdict (or a reasonable guess about what a jury is likely to award under the circumstances) as an indicator of how the proceeds should be divided, more so than an indication of exact dollars that will change hands.
For instance, Robert is killed on the job, his family sues, and a jury awards $1 million in total. However, they award $600k to his wife, and $100k to each of his four grown children. But back in the real world, the defendant who killed him only has $100k in insurance and no money in the bank. When it comes time to divide those proceeds among the family members, the obvious way to do it would be to use the same proportions that the jury came up with and give $60k to his wife and $10k to each of his four adult children. The alternative approach would be to use the $100k and pay all or most of it to the most deserving claimant. For instance, give $90k to Robert's wife and his children can split the remaining $10k.
Which approach is right? There is no right answer. This is just one of the many issues that gets litigated in a wrongful death case, which can create some hurt feelings. A good example of this is found in an email we received a few days ago from a woman named "Nancy" (certain details have been edited to protect the identity of the person who sent the email):
Hi. I'm simply inquiring on a settlement that took place almost 13 years ago. My mother was killed in a wrongful death car accident. My sister, grandmother, & myself were rewarded $33,000 a piece while my stepbrother was awarded over $300,000. At the time he was 5. I was told that he got substantially more because his dad would need the funds to take care of him financially over the next 13 years. I've just recently found out that his father put his money into an account and had it set up so he couldn't touch it until my stepbrother turned 18. So now, I'm finding it pretty unfair that at age 21 I received $33,000 & at age 18 she gets over $300,000. Do you have any words of wisdom here?
Here was our response:
Nancy,
The short answer is that all sounds pretty normal. Think of it as two separate components to the case. On one hand, you have the question of how much each claimant should receive out of the available funds. On the other hand, you have the question of what each party should do with their share of the money.
With respect to the first question, a jury will almost always award substantially more money to a minor child of a decedent than they will to an adult child. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that the minor child is financially dependent upon the decedent while the adult child is not. Let's say your mother made $50k per year. It's easy to figure that $15k per year could be spent on your stepbrother. 13 years worth of $15k in support amounts to $195,000. Not to mention that young children typically experience the effects of losing a parent to a much greater degree. Conversely, you were much older at the time of the accident, and a 21-year-old's personality has been shaped in large part, so, while the death of a parent certainly hurts them severely, the pain they feel is less transformative. A small child can, quite frankly, be damaged for life due to the loss of a parent during a pivotal period of development.
With respect to the second question, the court appoints a special attorney called an ad litem to review settlements concerning minors. Ultimately, it would have been the ad litem's decision to put the money away until your brother turned 18, not his father's decision.
All that to say, if the defendant had, say, $10 million in assets or insurance, you would've been able to recover far more for your losses, because your emotional distress and so on is worth far more than $33,000. However, when there is a shortage of funds, the monies get parsed out based on necessity. Think of it like financial triage.