What are the Basic Rules for a Wrongful Death Case in California?

In California, a wrongful death claim can be brought against a party that caused a death through negligence or other wrongful acts. Wrongful death requires a negligent or intentional act that violates the rights of the person who was killed. Once that is prove, people who suffered loss from that wrongful death can seek compensation for their damages.

A judge will instruct the jury according to standard jury instructions that outline the damages.

3921.Wrongful Death (Death of an Adult)

… The family claims the following economic damages:

1. The financial support, if any, that [name of decedent] would hav econtributed to the family during either the life expectancy that[name of decedent] had before [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] death orthe life expectancy of [name of plaintiff], whichever is shorter;

2. The loss of gifts or benefits that [name of plaintiff] would have expected to receive from [name of decedent];

3. Funeral and burial expenses; and

4. The reasonable value of household services that [name of decedent] would have provided.

We have included numerous cases on wrongful death. The first involves a wrongful death claim after a patient's death following a fall from her bed [1]. The facility was accused of negligence and the claim was not barred by an exclusion in the facility's liability policy.

For non-money damages the instruction reads:

Name of plaintiff] also claims the following noneconomic damages:

1. The loss of [name of decedent]’s love, companionship, comfort,care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support[;[and]/.]

2. The loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations;

3. The loss of [name of decedent]’s training and guidance

Cases, statutes, and regulations

1. Oxnard Manor LP v. Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company

United States District Court, C.D. California.December 21, 2023--- F.Supp.3d ----2023 WL 9502069

"…Under California law, bad faith claim brought by insured skilled nursing facility against its claims-made professional liability insurer, alleging insurer improperly denied coverage for insured in underlying action alleging claims, including wrongful death, after patient sustained injuries and died after she fell from her bed while residing at facility, was not improperly based on insurance regulations which did not give right to private right of action, as claim also alleged that insurer acted unreasonably in its handling of underlying action.…"

"…Under California law, exclusion in claims-made professional liability policy, which barred coverage for claims "based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, or in consequence of any claim arising from a medical incident that resulted in a claim prior to the policy period" did not bar coverage for insured skilled nursing facility in underlying 2018 action alleging claims, including wrongful death, after patient sustained injuries and died after she fell from her bed while residing at facility, despite contention that 2018 action "arose out of" 2014 state court action brought against facility before it was insured under policy; 2018 action, which alleged facility's employees took poor care of patient leading to her fall and eventual death, alleged "medical incident" wholly separate and apart from any "medical incidents" alleged in 2014 action.…"

"…Under California law, underlying 2018 action against insured skilled nursing facility, alleging claims, including wrongful death, after patient sustained injuries and died after she fell from her bed while residing at facility, and 2014 state court action brought against facility before it was insured under claims-made professional liability policy did not "arise out of single act, error or omission" so as to deem actions "related to" each other and, thus, policy's related claims provision, which stated all "related claims, whenever made, shall be deemed to be a single claim," did not bar coverage in action alleging insurer improperly denied coverage for 2018 action; while allegations in actions might be logically connected, 2014 action alleged facility deliberately chose to understaff facilities to maximize profits, whereas 2018 action alleged that one of, but not only possible, cause of patient's injury and death was decision sometime prior to her death to understaff the facility.…"

"…Under California law, exclusion in claims-made professional liability policy, which barred coverage for "bodily injury or any other type of harm, damage, loss, expected or intended from the standpoint of any Insured, or arising from the performance by any Insured of any intentional or willful act, other than those acts made in good faith in the furnishing of healthcare services," did not bar coverage for insured skilled nursing facility in underlying action alleging claims, including wrongful death, after patient sustained injuries and died after she fell from her bed while residing at facility; although action included allegations of knowing and intentional conduct on facility's part, it also included allegations of negligence in wrongful death claim.…"

2. Body Xchange Sports Club, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company

United States District Court, E.D. California.December 30, 2022648 F.Supp.3d 12052022 WL 18027836

"…IV. DISCUSSION. Body Xchange's complaint sets forth two claims: breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. 1-1 at 20-24.) To allege a breach of contract claim in California, Body Xchange must establish: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) Body Xchange's performance (or excuse for nonperformance) under the contract, (3) Zurich's breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from Zurich's breach. See Richman v. Hartley, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 (2014). The parties' dispute centers around the existence of a contract, i.e., whether the coverages provided in the insurance policy include the losses claimed by Body Xchange. (Doc. 18 at 9.) Under California law, the burden is on the insured to establish that a claimed loss "is within the basic scope of insurance coverage." Aydin Corp. v. First State Ins. Co., 18 Cal. 4th 1183, 1188, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 959 P.2d 1213 (1998). "(O)nce an insured has made this showing, the burden is on the insurer to prove the claim is specifically excluded." Id. Body Xchange contends the Business Income provision and the Civil Authority provision each independently provide coverage for its losses. (Doc. 1-1 at 9-13.) Zurich, on the other hand, contends neither of these provisions apply to the business income losses due to the government closure orders and, even if they did, one of three exclusions under the policy (the Virus Exclusion, the Ordinance or Law Exclusion, or the Loss of Use Exclusion) bars Body Xchange's claims. (Doc. 15 at 26-29.) The outcome of Zurich's motion, therefore, depends on the interpretation of the coverage and exclusions provisions.…"

"…To allege a breach of contract claim in California, party must claim (1) the existence of a contract, (2) its performance or excuse for nonperformance under the contract, (3) other party's breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from the breach.…"

3. Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.May 05, 2009636 F.Supp.2d 9952009 WL 1657330

"…Under California law, burden is on the insured to establish that the claim is within the basic scope of coverage and on the insurer to establish that the claim is specifically excluded.…"

4. Harris v. Gulf Ins. Co.

United States District Court, N.D. California.December 15, 2003297 F.Supp.2d 12202003 WL 23110387

"…Under California law, burden is on insured to establish that claim is within basic scope of coverage and on insurer to establish that claim is specifically excluded by clause in policy.…"

5. Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.August 06, 197660 Cal.App.3d 814131 Cal.Rptr. 854

"…According to the familiar California formula, the allegations requisite to a cause of action for negligence are (1) facts showing a duty of care in the defendant, (2) negligence constituting a breach of the duty, and (3) injury to the plaintiff as a proximate result. (3 Witkin, California Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, s 450, p. 2103.) The present parties do not debate the adequacy of plaintiff's first count with respect to the elements of negligence, proximate cause, and injury; they focus exclusively upon the issue (which we find dispositive, as will appear) of whether it alleges facts sufficient to show that defendants owed him a 'duty of care.'…"

"…The thrust of these observations is that defendants do not have statutory immunity from the negligence liability with which the first count would charge them. However, Muskopf holds that liability is the rule, and immunity the exception, only 'when there is negligence.' (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., supra, 55 Cal.2d 211 at p. 219, 11 Cal.Prtr. 89, 359 P.2d 457 (emphasis added).) The 1963 Tort Claims Act did not change this 'basic teaching.' (Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 798, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352.) Since its enactment, all governmental liability in California has been dependent upon its provisions. (Gov.Code, s 815; Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 808, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240.) This means that, to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity. (Susman v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at p. 809, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240.)…"

Name of plaintiff] also claims the following noneconomic damages:1. The loss of [name of decedent]’s love, companionship, comfort,care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support[;[and]/.][2. The loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations[; [and]/.]][3. The loss of [name of decedent]’s training and guidance United States District Court, C.D. California.August 07, 2013 Not Reported in F.Supp.2d2013 WL 4046047

"…The California Supreme Court's upcoming decision will necessarily apply to this case. Although Officers Scott, Tait, and Dahlia did not fire the lethal bullets, they each participated in the tactical conduct and decisions leading up to the shooting. Depending on the California Supreme Court's ruling, the officers' pre-shooting conduct might form the basis of liability for Coronel's wrongful death. The Court therefore deems it appropriate to allow Aguilar's wrongful-death claim to stand for the time being. Defendants Scott, Tait, and Dahlia's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's wrongful-death claim are therefore DENIED.…"

7. Airborne San Diego, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

United States District Court, S.D. California.May 10, 2021538 F.Supp.3d 10322021 WL 1853602

"…Under California law, an insurer's bad judgment or negligence in handling a claim is insufficient to establish bad faith; instead, the insurer must engage in a conscious and deliberate act, which unfairly frustrates the agreed common purposes and disappoints the reasonable expectations of the other party thereby depriving that party of the benefits of the agreement.…"

8. Foster Farms, LLC v. Everest National Insurance Company

United States District Court, N.D. California.April 24, 2023670 F.Supp.3d 9532023 WL 3082327

"…Under California law, provision in specific matter exclusion in private company directors and officers (D & O) liability policy, which precluded coverage for claim alleging "the same or substantially the same wrongful acts, interrelated wrongful acts, facts, circumstances or situations underlying or alleged in" enumerated antitrust and related actions involving insured's chicken products was not ambiguous and, thus, did not preclude coverage for underlying actions alleging antitrust violations concerning insured's turkey products; actions involved different products, different markets, different reports, different time periods, and different acts taken to decrease production, acts in one market did not cause acts in the other market, and impact of alleged anticompetitive behavior in either market did not affect the other market.…"

"…Under California law, section in private company directors and officers (D & O) liability policy, which precluded claims "based upon, arising out of, or attributable to any fact, circumstance or wrongful acts which have been the subject of any written notice provision," was not rendered illusory by policy's specific matter exclusion, which precluded coverage for claim "based upon, arising out of, or attributable to" enumerated antitrust and related actions involving insured's chicken products, but did not preclude coverage for underlying actions alleging antitrust violations concerning its turkey products; while written notice provision clearly excluded claims in actions involving insured's chicken products, the specific matter exclusion provided a broader exclusion, though it did not exclude claims involving insured's turkey products.…"

9. LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.August 29, 202394 Cal.App.5th 1172313 Cal.Rptr.3d 77

"…"The basic principles of claim preclusion are roughly the same under California and federal law, but there are some key differences. For example, while federal law defines a 'claim' for purposes of claim preclusion using a transactional test (Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems (9th Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 985, 987), California law uses the older pleading term 'cause of action' and defines it according to the common law doctrine of primary rights. The more modern transactional approach has been adopted by the Second Restatement. (See Rest.2d Judgments, S 24.) Although . our high court ha(s) moved California law toward alignment with the overall approach to issue and claim preclusion in the Second Restatement, at least in the terminology we employ (see DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378 (DKN Holdings)), some features of California claim preclusion law remain distinctive. The primary rights doctrine is one such area. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 804, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342 (Boeken).)" (Guerrero, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 1099, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, fn. omitted.)…"

The legal issues in a wrongful death case must be carefully examined so that your claims are fully preserved. Call our expert lawyers for assistance.