About 4,500 pedestrians will lose their lives in a motor vehicle this year. Some of these deaths will turn into a wrongful death claim. These are sophisticated claims which are often aggressively defended by insurance companies and entail complicated medical, accident reconstruction and legal issues.

Like with any vehicle accident lawsuit, insurance company adjustors, when they suggest any settlement whatsoever, will make the offer dependent not on the plaintiff's damages but rather on the financial risk faced by the insurance company. There are several ways in which insurance companies make an effort to reduce their risk. For example, these cases often involve (1) denials of liability by the defendants and the insurance companies insuring the defendants; (2) insurance issues (including the unavailability of insurance, and excess insurance); (3) economic issues (including whether the victim was married and had any children (especially minor children), the age and general health of the victim, and the loss of future earning capacity) that impact the worth of the case; and (4) non-economic issues that affect case valuation. A lawyer handling one of these lawsuits thus needs to have the skill and experience to deal successfully with all of the challenges that can arise in the matter. Consider the following:

The victim in the first motor vehicle accident case was a 66 year old female pedestrian. Thrown 27 feet before hitting the road, the victim suffered numerous injuries. She had a clavicle fracture. She had an ankle fracture. She had several rib fractures. She even had skull fractures. She was transported to a hospital where she died from her injuries. She was survived by her family that consisted of a husband, five children, and six grandchildren. The law firm that represented her family reported that they obtained a $725,000 settlement at mediation. In the second case, the victim, a male pedestrian, was also killed as a consequence of the accident. He was survived by two children. He had a part time job. A settlement of $1.15 million was reported by the law firm that represented the victim’s family.

Both cases had to do with a pedestrian fatality. Each lawsuit dealt with substantial recoveries. Still the documentation of these claims fail to explain the way the settlement amount was calculated. It could be that each represents the upper range of available insurance. Possibly each settlement could reflect the historical range of awards by juries in the jurisdictions where each of the matters would have gone to trial. Perhaps each settlement might reflect other ıssues.

For instance, in the second lawsuit the victim held a part-time job while in the first case there is no discussion of the plaintiff having a job. Considering the age of the victim in that matter, however, it is very likely that she was retired. Further, In the second first matter the victim had children. The reports do not document ıf the children were minors or adults. In the first lawsuit the victim had five children, but given her age, it is likely all her children were adults. Grandchildren normally have no standing to make a claim for the death of a grandparent. These variances may be the reason for why the recovery in the second case was 53% more than in the first matter.

By comparing these cases it becomes clear that settlements regarding the death of a pedestrian caused by a motor vehicle accident can be significant. Insurance company adjustors, if they make any settlement offer at all, are going to make an offer based not on the victim’s loss but on the risk faced by the insurance company. Thus, a lawyer handling one of these cases on behalf of the plaintiff must never assume that the case will settle. Rather, the lawyer can generally position the matter to best improve the possibility of a settlement by preparing the case as though it will have to go to trial.