When the person killed was a spouse, the wrongful death damages case requires building a model that captures multiple forms of loss simultaneously. The surviving spouse has lost a financial co-contributor to the household, a provider of services that the household must now pay others to perform, and a partner whose companionship, love, and emotional support carried real and non-fungible value. The three-part model is substantively distinct in each jurisdiction because state law determines which categories of loss are compensable for a surviving spouse, how each category is measured, and what the burden of proof requires.
Our ongoing coverage of wrongful death practice addresses the broader legal framework; this piece focuses on how the forensic economics testimony is structured and what lay evidence must accompany it to present a complete spousal wrongful death damages case at trial.
Category One: Lost Economic Support and Future Earnings
If the decedent was employed, the baseline economic damages claim is the present value of the income stream the surviving spouse and dependents have lost. The forensic economist calculates the decedent's projected earnings trajectory using actual compensation history, Bureau of Labor Statistics wage growth data for the relevant occupation and industry, and a present-value discount rate that reflects current conditions. For a decedent who was mid-career, the model extends to the expected retirement date or to the surviving spouse's actuarial life expectancy, whichever is shorter.
The model must also address employee benefits that have been lost: health insurance coverage that the surviving spouse must now obtain independently, employer-matched retirement contributions that will no longer be made, and any other deferred compensation that was part of the decedent's total compensation package. These components are frequently understated in wrongful death models that focus only on base salary.
For a decedent who was not employed outside the home, the economic contribution analysis must account for the financial management of the household, investment management responsibilities, and any income-producing activity undertaken from the home, even if informal.
Category Two: Household Services Valuation
Household services valuation is one of the most under-developed components in many spousal wrongful death cases and one of the most significant in terms of present value. The decedent's contributions to the household included cooking, cleaning, home maintenance, yard work, childcare, financial management, transportation, and the scores of other tasks that sustained the household's daily operation. When those tasks must now be performed by a paid third party, the replacement cost over the surviving spouse's remaining life expectancy is an economic loss that is quantifiable and compensable in every jurisdiction.
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology and the research published through the American Bar Foundation have developed replacement-value methodologies that forensic economists use to calculate the cost of replacing specific household services. The economist's approach begins with a time-budget survey: documenting, typically through a lay witness diary or spouse testimony, the hours per week the decedent spent on each category of household activity, then applying published wage rates for each category of service at the applicable geographic market. The present value of that replacement cost stream over the surviving spouse's life expectancy becomes the economic loss figure.
Category Three: Non-Economic Consortium Damages
Loss of consortium and companionship is the non-economic dimension of the surviving spouse's claim. Most states allow the surviving spouse to recover for the loss of love, affection, companionship, sexual relations, comfort, and moral support. The compensable period is measured from the date of the decedent's death to the projected natural end of the marriage, which courts typically measure using the shorter of the two spouses' remaining actuarial life expectancy.
The non-economic testimony should document the character of the marital relationship with specificity: how the couple spent time together, what shared activities they engaged in, what the emotional dynamic of the marriage was, and what the surviving spouse's daily life now lacks that the marriage provided. Generic testimony about a good marriage does not build the same damages record as specific testimony about routines, rituals, and relational patterns that are permanently gone.
Defense Arguments and Responses
In spousal wrongful death cases, three defense arguments appear regularly. The first is that the marriage was troubled or that separation or divorce was likely, which defense counsel argues should reduce or eliminate the consortium and future economic damages because the marital relationship would have ended absent the negligence. Respond with testimony from family members, friends, and in some cases a marital therapist who can speak to the quality and likely trajectory of the relationship.
The second argument involves remarriage: evidence that the surviving spouse has remarried after the death has historically been excluded under the collateral source rule in most jurisdictions, though some states permit it in limited circumstances. Know your jurisdiction's rule on remarriage evidence before the damages model is finalized.
The third argument involves the decedent's health status at the time of death: if the decedent had an independent health condition that would have reduced their life expectancy or earning capacity, the economic model must address that reduction directly rather than ignoring it and losing credibility with the jury when the defense raises it.
Coordinating the Forensic Economist and Lay Testimony
The forensic economist's testimony is most persuasive when it is grounded in specific facts developed by lay witnesses. The time-budget for household services should be drawn from the surviving spouse's own testimony, corroborated by children, neighbors, or family members who observed the household operation. The earnings trajectory should reference specific documents: pay stubs, W-2s, performance reviews, and employer testimony about promotion trajectory. For case law on household services valuation methodology, the forensic economics literature and the appellate decisions that have addressed the reliability of specific valuation approaches provide the foundation for a Daubert defense of the economist's methodology.