Selecting an expert economist wrongful death California litigation demands is one of the more consequential, and frequently underanalyzed, decisions in building a damages case. In a wrongful death trial where liability is fully admitted, as happened in a case that produced a $34 million verdict against a public entity for five surviving daughters, the entire trial narrows to a single question: how much is this loss worth? Expert testimony, and the strategic choices about when and how to use it, becomes central to answering that question in a way the jury finds credible.
801
Evidence Code section governing expert opinion testimony
Present value
Method a forensic economist uses to project future support
Not every wrongful death case benefits equally from extensive economist testimony. Where the decedent has a clean, well-documented earnings history, a forensic economist can build a rigorous, quantifiable projection of future financial support, discounted to present value, that gives the jury a concrete economic anchor. Where the decedent's income history is inconsistent, informal, or affected by periods of unemployment, homelessness, or addiction, as was true in this case, an aggressive economic damages presentation risks becoming the weakest part of the plaintiffs' case, an easy target for cross-examination that can distract the jury from the far stronger noneconomic damages evidence. Here the trial team weighted its damages presentation toward two decades of photographs and testimony from each of the five daughters rather than a speculative earnings projection.
When retaining an expert economist, the facts of the case should drive the selection. An economist comfortable with nontraditional income documentation can construct a defensible, if modest, projection rather than refusing to engage with imperfect data or overreaching with an unsupportable one. An economist willing to present a range, with transparent assumptions, is generally more credible and more resistant to impeachment than one who offers false precision. In cases involving surviving minor children, the economist may also need to synchronize projections with testimony about the children's ages, educational needs, and the years remaining until each reaches independence.
An economist experienced with cash income, gaps in employment, and nontraditional work histories can construct a defensible, modest projection rather than refusing to engage with imperfect data or overreaching with an unsupportable one.
Jurors and cross-examining defense counsel alike respond skeptically to projections presented with false precision. An economist willing to present a range, with transparent assumptions, is more credible and more resistant to impeachment.
Government defendants often retain their own economists to counter with a lower valuation, so an economist experienced in high-stakes public entity litigation can anticipate and rebut those countervailing methodologies.
Economic and noneconomic damages testimony should never compete for the jury's attention. Closing argument should delineate the two categories: a modest, honestly presented economic figure, followed by a far more substantial noneconomic loss built on relationship testimony and documentary evidence.
The case behind this page
How expert and lay testimony were balanced to value the loss.
Read the full caseRelated strategy
Why a weak earnings claim does not mean a weak case.
The earnings strategyRelated breakdowns from this case and our wrongful death practice.
We take wrongful death cases and coordinate expert strategy as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseA forensic economist calculates the financial support survivors would have reasonably expected to receive from the decedent, using earnings history, work-life expectancy, and present-value discounting methodology.
Not always. In cases where the decedent's income history is limited or inconsistent, the damages case may rely more heavily on noneconomic loss testimony than on economic projections.
Yes, a case can result in a substantial verdict driven predominantly by noneconomic damages, such as loss of love and companionship, even where the economic loss component is modest.
