Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Reviewed
In this guide
A California wrongful death claim pays in seven categories, each with its own proof, and the money reaches each heir through an allocation that two rules can shrink. Who may file is on our page on who can file, and the deadlines are on the main wrongful death page.
Seven things a family can recover
The categories come from CACI No. 3921 in the Judicial Council's 2025 civil jury instructions, which call the person who died the decedent. Each is a proof problem, and a documented claim treats it that way.
| Category | Type | What proves it |
|---|---|---|
| Financial support the decedent would have contributed | Economic | Pay records, tax returns, benefits, an economist |
| Loss of gifts or benefits expected from the decedent | Economic | A documented history of gifts, tuition, housing, coverage |
| Funeral and burial expenses | Economic | Invoices and receipts |
| Reasonable value of household services | Economic | What the decedent did at home, and replacement cost |
| Loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, society | Noneconomic | Testimony about the relationship as it was |
| Loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations | Noneconomic | A spouse or registered domestic partner only |
| Loss of the decedent's training and guidance | Noneconomic | Usually a child's claim about a parent |
Financial support is measured over the shorter of two life expectancies, the decedent's or the claiming survivor's. That rule is old and settled: Parsons v. Easton (1921) 184 Cal. 764, 770 to 771 applied it where parents outlived a son, and Francis v. Sauve (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 102, 120 to 121 approved an instruction stating it. Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 415, 424 adds the practical half: life expectancy is a question of fact considering health, lifestyle, and occupation, and mortality tables are admissible but not conclusive.
Household services are the category families undervalue most. Allen v. Toledo, at 423, observed that the services of children, elderly parents, or nonworking spouses often produce no measurable net income for the family, yet the death of such a person is unquestionably a substantial injury for which compensation should be paid. The proof is an inventory of what the person did each week and what it costs to hire it done.
On the noneconomic side, Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 165, 201 confirms that the closeness of the family unit, the depth of the love and affection, and the character of the decedent as kind, attentive, and loving are proper considerations for a jury. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 992, 997 to 998 confirms a child may recover for the loss of a parent's consortium, meaning the companionship and care of that parent.
How future losses are counted today
Present cash value is the smaller amount today that, invested safely, would produce the future payments as they came due. CACI No. 3921 requires future economic damages be reduced to it. Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 512, 520 to 521 explains the mechanics: total future lost support is converted to a present lump sum which, invested at the highest return consistent with reasonable security, pays the equivalent of the lost benefits when they would have arrived.
Noneconomic damages are not reduced again. Following Salgado v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 19 Cal.4th 629, 646 to 647, a jury awarding future noneconomic damages states the amount in current dollars paid at the time of judgment. The Directions for Use, the notes that accompany the instruction, flag that this paragraph is bracketed, meaning optional, because no court has squarely applied Salgado to a wrongful death case, a note to keep in mind before anyone argues about it.
How the court divides the award
CACI No. 3921 ends by telling the jury to consider the losses of all plaintiffs, return a single amount, and leave the division to the judge. Canavin, at 535 to 536, gives the reasons: the heirs' interests conflict, individual shares of lost support are hard to isolate where minors are involved, and a court sitting without a jury can do the job more efficiently. The same opinion, at 536, adds that where all statutory plaintiffs are represented by counsel and waive judicial apportionment, meaning they give up having the judge divide the award, the trial court should instruct the jury to return separate verdicts unless those considerations require otherwise.
In practice the division is agreed and then presented for approval, driven by evidence rather than by fairness in the abstract. A spouse who lost decades of income and a household partner is not in the same position as an independent adult child, and a minor with years of support ahead is in neither position.
Where a minor is an heir, the share is not handed over directly. A court approves the compromise, meaning the settlement, of a minor's claim and directs how the money is held, which adds a hearing and its own paperwork to the end of the case.
The two rules that reduce the award
The first is the decedent's own comparative fault, meaning the share of responsibility assigned to the person who died. CACI No. 407 tells the jury that if the defendant proves the decedent was negligent and that the negligence was a substantial factor in causing the death, the plaintiffs' damages are reduced by that percentage. Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 285 confirms that comparative fault principles support apportioning liability among those responsible for the loss, including the decedent. Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1395 states the consequence plainly: in wrongful death actions the fault of the decedent is attributable to the surviving heirs, whose recovery is offset by the same percentage. No heir escapes it, however careful that heir was.
The second is several liability. Civil Code section 1431.2, adopted as Proposition 51, provides that in any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death based on comparative fault, each defendant's liability for noneconomic damages is several only and not joint. Each defendant is liable only for the noneconomic damages allocated in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault. Economic damages stay joint. The practical result is that a defendant found 20 percent at fault pays 20 percent of the loss of companionship, and if the other 80 percent sits with an uninsured party, that portion is often uncollectible.
When the usual rule changes
Four situations change the arithmetic.
- Medical negligence. Civil Code section 3333.2, as amended by Assembly Bill 35, caps noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action based on professional negligence against health care providers or institutions. The limit started at $500,000 for cases filed on or after January 1, 2023, and rises each January 1 by $50,000 for ten years up to $1,000,000. The amount in effect at the time of judgment, arbitration award, or settlement is the one that applies. Economic damages are not capped.
- The death of a minor child. CACI No. 3922 tracks CACI No. 3921 but adds a subtraction: the jury deducts the present cash value of the probable costs of the child's support and education. It also omits training and guidance and the loss of sexual relations, which do not fit the claim.
- A decedent with little or no earnings. Financial support may be small while household services and the noneconomic categories carry the case. This is common where the person who died was retired, a homemaker, or a caregiver, and it is why an inventory of unpaid work belongs in the file early.
- A workplace death with a compensation lien. Where benefits were paid, the employer or its workers' compensation insurer asserts a claim against any third party recovery. Labor Code section 3852 leaves the respective rights of the heirs and the employer to the court. Our page on fatal workplace and construction deaths covers how that plays out.
How the number is built
There is no published average. The number in any case is built out of records: what the person earned, what they gave, what they did at home, how long they would have done it, and what the relationship was. The categories are fixed by CACI No. 3921, the discounting by Canavin and Salgado, and the reductions by CACI No. 407 and section 1431.2. Everything else is evidence.
The division among heirs is the part families control, and the part most often mishandled. Agreeing on it early, with each heir advised by someone who represents that heir, is worth more than any argument about the total. If the death came out of a crash, our truck accident page explains how liability evidence is preserved, and our page on survival actions covers the estate's separate claim.
Bring the records and we will go through the categories with you. No fee unless we recover.