Loss of Future Earnings

Michael Grossman, Wrongful Death Lawyer in San Antonio TX, Explains Loss of Future Earnings Compensation in a Wrongful Death Case

When a family member or beneficiary sues for wrongful death of a loved one, he or she is entitled to a number of different damages. One of these damages is loss of future income. This concept represents the amount of money the victim would have made over the course of the victim’s life if he or she had survived to work.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

Calculating the exact value of this type of damage is complex, and is open to interpretation by the courts. The most basic value can be calculated by multiplying the victim’s yearly salary by his or her work expectancy, or the number of years he or she would likely have continued working. For example, say a 25-year-old electrician is killed in an accident. The electrician had a yearly income of $60,000, and would likely have continued working for 40 years. The base value of the loss of future income portion of the lawsuit’s damages would therefore be $2.4 million.

But calculating loss of income potential is rarely this simple. The value is often reduced to present value, which attempts to adjust the number to account of changes in the value of the dollar over the course of the victim’s work expectancy. But an experienced attorney can help the plaintiff raise the value through expert witness testimony and case precedents. This testimony attempts to illustrate that the victim may have earned raises and promotions over the course of his or her career, and loss of income potential should account for that.

In certain situations, calculating the correct loss of future earnings is even more technical. Consider this theoretical example: a man is currently in his final year of medical school, preparing to become a surgeon. He is waiting tables to pay his way through school. The man is killed in an accident and his family wishes to file a wrongful death lawsuit. The base value for his loss of future earnings (current salary multiplied by work expectancy) would be relatively small, since he is currently a waiter.

The bottom line is that calculating compensation due in a wrongful death case is a highly technical process that is over the heads of most non-attorneys. But our firm is here to make sure that you and your family receive fair compensation. We have twenty years of experience successfully resolving wrongful death cases in all practice areas. We know how to properly calculate loss of future earnings and other forms of damages – and more importantly, we know how to convince the courts that you and your family deserve this level of compensation for your loss. So if someone you love has died due to another person’s negligence, contact experienced San Antonio wrongful death attorney Michael Grossman, and let us help you bring those responsible for your loved one’s death to justice.


Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.

Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.

The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$97,500.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First-Party Dram Shop Accident
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
Total Recovery:
$97,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$48,750.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.

The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers' demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant' insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm's history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Medical Malpractice
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,133.00
Litigation Expenses:
$400.00
$95,035.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$95,035.00
Attorney Fees:
$31,678.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25.00
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.

The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.

Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$78,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$370.00
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.

Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.

Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$82,500.00
Litigation Expenses:
$10,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.

This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.

The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.

Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.

Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential

"When I Lost My Father..."

Get Adobe Flash player

Our Cases in the News

Get Adobe Flash player

Contact Us

Fill out the form below and a legal professional will contact you shortly.

Full Name:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe your situation:

   

Related Articles

Click to Call

--
Enter your phone number above and click "Call Me" to talk to one of our lawyers about your potential case.

Our Clients' Words

Recent Successes