CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Sacramento Wrongful Death Lawyer

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

Why Choose Arnold Law Firm for Your Sacramento Wrongful Death Case

When you lose a family member to someone else’s negligence or wrongdoing, no amount of money will undo what happened. What money can do is something more practical and more honest: it can cover the future they took. It can pay for what your loved one would have earned, what they would have contributed at home, and what their presence was worth to the people who loved them.

That recovery requires a law firm that will treat your loss with the seriousness it deserves and that will treat the insurance company with the realism it has earned. Arnold Law Firm has spent decades representing Sacramento-area families in wrongful death cases arising from auto and truck crashes, motorcycle collisions, medical malpractice, premises hazards, nursing home neglect, and workplace incidents. Our founder, Clay Arnold, is a member of the State Bar of California and the Sacramento County Bar Association. We handle every wrongful death case on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for your family.

Three things you should know now:

  • California treats wrongful death as a claim that belongs to the family, not the estate. The case is for the heirs’ own losses (financial support, services, society, companionship), not for what your loved one suffered. Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., 18 Cal.5th 364 (2025).
  • The deadlines run from the date of death, not the date of injury. Two years for most cases under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, and six months if a public entity is involved under Government Code § 911.2. The clock starts at a moment when you are still grieving. We track the deadlines so your family does not have to.
  • The “one action rule” means one case for the whole family. California requires all eligible heirs to bring their wrongful death claims in a single proceeding. Hiring one experienced firm is the only way to do this right.

Call (916) 777-7777 for a free, no-obligation case evaluation, or request an evaluation online.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

Right Now: What To Do After Losing a Loved One in a Sacramento Wrongful Death

The first hours and days after losing a family member are not when you should be planning a lawsuit. What you can do, and what materially affects the case later, is preserve information and resist pressure from insurance adjusters who will reach out quickly. Here is what we recommend.

  1. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. An adjuster will likely call within days. They are not calling to help. Their job is to lock you into a version of events and to start building a comparative fault argument against your loved one. Politely decline and say your family is consulting an attorney.
  2. Do not sign anything from an insurer. This includes release forms, medical authorizations, or “preliminary settlement” paperwork. An early signature can dramatically limit what your family can recover later.
  3. Preserve all evidence. Keep your loved one’s phone, vehicle, helmet, work uniform, medications, and personal effects in the condition they were at the time of death. Do not authorize repairs, scrapping, or disposal. Hospital records, police reports, autopsy reports, and witness contact information all matter. If something can be photographed, photograph it.
  4. Identify witnesses early. People who saw the incident or the conditions leading up to it become hard to find within weeks. If there are coworkers, classmates, drivers, neighbors, or first responders who can speak to what happened, get names and contact information now.
  5. Be careful with social media. Defense attorneys and their investigators monitor the families of wrongful death victims and screenshot any post that can be twisted. Limit posts about the case, the family’s grief, the financial impact, or any anger toward the responsible party. If you have already posted, do not delete; deletion can become its own issue.
  6. Note the date of death carefully. Most California wrongful death claims must be filed within two years under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1, measured from the date of death rather than the date of injury. Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (1999). If a government entity (Caltrans, the county, the city, a public hospital, a public school, a police agency) is potentially involved, a written government claim must be presented within six months under Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2.
  7. Contact a wrongful death attorney as soon as you reasonably can. Investigation works best when it begins early, before surveillance footage is overwritten and before defense investigators have spoken to the same witnesses you would have. Calling early does not commit you to filing suit. It commits you to being informed.

If your family has already taken some of these steps and others have slipped, do not panic. Contact an attorney now and we will build the case from where things stand.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Who Can File a Wrongful Death Claim in California

California’s wrongful death statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, gives standing to a specific set of family members. The categories matter because they determine who must be included in the case (under the “one action rule” all eligible heirs must be in a single proceeding) and who may be entitled to a share of the recovery.

Primary Heirs

The primary tier of standing under § 377.60(a) includes the decedent’s surviving spouse or registered domestic partner, children (marital and nonmarital, in accordance with Probate Code § 6453), and issue of deceased children (typically grandchildren whose parent predeceased the decedent). When there is no surviving issue, standing extends to those who would inherit by intestate succession (parents, then siblings and their issue, under Probate Code § 6402).

Putative Spouses, Stepchildren, and Parents Who Were Financially Dependent

Section 377.60(b) recognizes that California families do not always fit traditional categories. Putative spouses (the surviving partner of a void or voidable marriage who in good faith believed the marriage was valid), children of putative spouses, stepchildren, and parents may have standing if they were financially dependent on the decedent. Stennett v. Miller, 34 Cal.App.5th 284 (2019); Inzunza v. Naranjo, 94 Cal.App.5th 736 (2023). Dependency means actual financial support, not emotional or psychological reliance. Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th 165 (2015).

Minors Who Lived in the Household

Section 377.60(c) extends standing to minors who resided in the decedent’s household for at least 180 days before death and were dependent on the decedent for at least half of their support. This category covers situations such as a stepparent or partner who functioned as a caretaker without formal legal status.

Domestic Partners

Registered domestic partners established under Family Code § 297(b) have the same standing in wrongful death actions as surviving spouses, with the same rights, protections, and benefits. Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5.

Parents of an Adult Decedent

If your adult child died and they have surviving children of their own, you (as the surviving parent) may not have standing under § 377.60(a). Standing then belongs to the decedent’s children. Parents have standing only when the decedent has no surviving issue.

The One Action Rule

California law requires that all eligible heirs’ wrongful death claims be brought in a single proceeding. King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 82 Cal.App.5th 440 (2022). The purpose is to give defendants one chance to resolve the case in one judgment for lump-sum damages, with the court (not the jury) later determining how the lump sum is divided among the heirs. An heir who is left out of an initial filing may intervene as a matter of right. This is why families should hire one experienced firm to coordinate the case for everyone.

California Deadlines That Apply to a Sacramento Wrongful Death Case

Wrongful death cases run on multiple clocks. Two key features distinguish wrongful death from ordinary personal injury cases: most deadlines run from the date of death (not the date of injury), and the deadlines are not the same as those that apply to a survival action filed alongside the wrongful death claim.

Two-Year Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 requires a wrongful death action to be filed within two years. The California Supreme Court has confirmed that “the date of accrual of a cause of action for wrongful death is the date of death” because “it is only on the date of death that a wrongful death cause of action becomes complete with all of its elements.” Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383, 405 (1999). This rule protects families who need time to handle the funeral, settle immediate affairs, and decide whether to pursue a claim. It does not change the fact that two years is the maximum.

Survival Actions Have a Different Clock

If your family also pursues a survival action (covering economic losses the decedent suffered before death), Code of Civil Procedure § 377.20 controls. Survival actions are subject to the limitations period that would have applied to the decedent’s underlying claim, measured from the date of the injury. Where the decedent was injured and survived for a meaningful period before dying, the wrongful death and survival action clocks may not be the same.

Six-Month Government Claim Deadline

If the responsible party is a public entity (a public hospital, a public school district, Caltrans, the county or city, a public utility, a police or fire agency) or a government employee acting within the scope of employment, a written government claim must be presented to the entity within six months of the date of death. Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2. The accrual date for the government claim deadline tracks the date of the underlying statute of limitations, so for wrongful death claims this means six months from the date of death. Cal. Gov. Code § 901.

The entity has 45 days to act on the claim, after which it is deemed rejected. Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4. If written rejection notice is given, suit must be filed within six months of that notice. Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6. If no written notice is given, the deadline extends to two years from accrual. Failure to comply with the government claim presentation requirement bars the claim entirely.

Wrongful Death of a Minor

Code of Civil Procedure § 352, which tolls the statute of limitations for minors, has a key exception: tolling does not apply to claims against a public entity or public employee that require government claim presentation. A child injured by a road defect or a government-owned vehicle is subject to the same six-month deadline regardless of age. A parent or guardian must act within that period.

What This Means in Practice

If a public entity is potentially involved, the two-year statute of limitations is irrelevant. The six-month government claim deadline runs first and forecloses the case if missed. Even if no public entity is involved, the two-year clock is shorter than many people assume, and the early investigation work that builds case value is best done in the first six to twelve months after death.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

Survival Actions, the 2026 Sunset, and the Elder Abuse Exception

Alongside the wrongful death claim, a California family typically pursues a separate survival action under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.30 and 377.34. The survival action covers a different set of losses than the wrongful death claim. Understanding the distinction matters because California law on survival actions has changed in important ways effective January 1, 2026.

What a Survival Action Covers

A survival action recovers what the decedent themselves was entitled to recover for harm suffered before death. The action is brought by the decedent’s personal representative (executor or administrator of the estate) or, if there is none, by the successor in interest under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.32. Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34(a) limits survival action damages to “the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death.”

For survival actions filed on or after January 1, 2026, the recoverable categories are:

  • The decedent’s pre-death medical expenses, subject to the Howell limitation
  • The decedent’s lost wages and lost earning capacity between injury and death
  • Other economic losses (property damage, out-of-pocket expenses)
  • Punitive or exemplary damages the decedent would have been entitled to recover had they survived

The Expired Pain and Suffering Exception

From January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, California temporarily allowed survival actions to recover the decedent’s pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement. CCP § 377.34(b). That temporary window has closed. For survival actions filed on or after January 1, 2026, the default rule of § 377.34(a) applies again, and the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering damages are not recoverable in an ordinary survival action. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.5th 139 (2025).

This change matters for case valuation. In a case where the decedent suffered for hours or months between injury and death (a typical fact pattern in catastrophic auto crash cases, severe medical malpractice cases, or burn injury cases), the recoverable damages have decreased meaningfully under post-sunset law. Wrongful death damages to the surviving family (which compensate for the heirs’ losses, not the decedent’s) are not affected by this change.

The Elder Abuse Exception: Why It Matters

One important exception preserves access to decedent pre-death pain and suffering damages even after the § 377.34(b) sunset. Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, when physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment is proven by clear and convincing evidence to have been committed with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, the limitations of § 377.34 do not apply. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657(b). This means that in elder abuse cases, the family can still recover the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering even when the same facts in a non-elder-abuse case would not permit such recovery.

For families whose elderly loved one suffered serious harm in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or under a caregiver’s responsibility, this exception can be the difference between a modest economic-damages case and a substantial recovery that accounts for what the decedent actually went through.

Joinder of Wrongful Death and Survival Claims

Code of Civil Procedure § 377.62 specifically authorizes joinder and consolidation of wrongful death and survival actions arising from the same wrongful conduct. In practice this is how most cases proceed: a single complaint with separate counts, single discovery process, single trial, with the jury asked to allocate damages between the two causes of action. Code of Civil Procedure § 377.61 specifies that wrongful death damages may not include damages recoverable under § 377.34 (the survival action statute), preventing double recovery.

Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity in Wrongful Death

If your loved one died in the course of their employment, the family’s options are different from an ordinary wrongful death case. Labor Code § 3602 establishes workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy against an employer in most workplace fatalities. The family is entitled to workers’ compensation death benefits, but the broader categories of damages available in a wrongful death lawsuit (loss of society, full economic loss, punitive damages) are not available against the employer through that mechanism.

Three statutory exceptions in Labor Code § 3602(b) permit a wrongful death tort action against the employer:

  1. Willful physical assault by the employer. A genuine intentional attack, not negligence, by an actual employer (or sufficiently high-ranking employer agent).
  2. Fraudulent concealment. The employer fraudulently concealed the existence of the employee’s injury and its connection with employment, and the concealment aggravated the injury.
  3. Defective product manufactured by the employer. The death was caused by a defective product that the employer manufactured and sold, leased, or otherwise transferred to an independent third party.

Outside of these exceptions, the case against the employer is workers’ compensation. However, this does not necessarily end the analysis. Most fatal workplace incidents involve third parties (equipment manufacturers, contractors on the site, property owners, drivers of other vehicles in commercial-driving deaths) who are not protected by workers’ compensation exclusivity. A coordinated case may combine workers’ compensation death benefits against the employer with a wrongful death tort action against a third-party defendant.

Drunk Driving and Alcohol Provider Liability

When a drunk driver causes a fatal collision, California’s tort framework permits a full wrongful death case against the driver (often with punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890 (1979)), but generally not against the establishment that served the driver. The Legislature abolished tort liability against alcohol providers with one narrow exception: a licensed vendor who sold or furnished alcohol to “any obviously intoxicated minor” causing personal injury or death. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602.1; Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal.3d 720 (1984).

Social hosts are similarly immune under Civil Code § 1714(c). The exception permits a claim “against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person whom he or she knows, or should have known, to be under 21 years of age.” Civ. Code § 1714(d)(1). The exception applies even when a private person charged money for the drinks. Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697 (2014).

Outside the obviously-intoxicated-minor pathway, alcohol provider liability in California is essentially closed. This is one of the questions families most often ask, and the honest answer is usually that the recovery has to come from the driver’s coverage and, where available, the family’s own UM/UIM coverage. Identifying additional defendants (a vehicle owner, an employer if the driver was on company business, a separately negligent third party) is one of the most important things a wrongful death lawyer does early in a case.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Common Causes of Sacramento Wrongful Death Cases

Wrongful death cases are a category of litigation, not a specific kind of accident. The category covers any death caused by another party’s wrongful act or neglect. The most common fact patterns we see in Sacramento-area cases fall into the following groups.

Auto, Truck, and Motorcycle Crashes

Fatal motor vehicle collisions are the most frequent source of wrongful death cases. Drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, lane-change failures, and left-turn errors regularly cause deaths on Interstate 5, Interstate 80, Highway 99, US-50, and the surface streets of Sacramento County. Commercial truck fatalities additionally involve the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the rapid evidence loss that is characteristic of trucking cases. See our practice pages on car accident cases, truck accident cases, and motorcycle accident cases.

Medical Malpractice

Wrongful death from medical malpractice (failure to diagnose, surgical error, medication error, anesthesia error, birth-related injury, hospital infection) involves California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) framework, including the cap on non-economic damages under Civ. Code § 3333.2. Recent California Supreme Court authority confirms that the wrongful death claim and any survival claim are separate and entitled to separate MICRA cap treatment. Ng v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.5th 382 (2025). These cases require attorneys familiar with both medical evidence and the MICRA procedural framework.

Premises Liability and Dangerous Conditions

Falls from heights, drownings, exposure to hazards, and other premises-based deaths can support a wrongful death claim against a property owner, business operator, or property manager. Where the dangerous condition is on public property (state highways, county roads, city sidewalks, public school facilities, public parks), Government Code § 835 governs and the six-month government claim deadline applies.

Nursing Home and Elder Abuse

Deaths in skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and residential care can support either ordinary wrongful death and survival claims or a separate Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act case. The Elder Abuse Act includes one of the most important exceptions in California law: when physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment is proven by clear and convincing evidence with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, the survival action damage limits in Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34 do not apply. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657(b). This is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Drunk Driving Cases

When a drunk driver causes a fatal collision, the family typically has two potential targets. The driver is liable for compensatory damages plus punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294, since voluntary intoxication while driving demonstrates the conscious disregard for safety that supports punitives. Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890 (1979). The bar, restaurant, or social host who served the driver, however, is almost always immune. California’s commercial server immunity under Business and Professions Code § 25602 and social host immunity under Civil Code § 1714(c) leave only one narrow exception: a licensed vendor who sold or furnished alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor (Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602.1), or an adult who knowingly furnished alcohol at their residence to a person they knew or should have known to be under 21 (Civ. Code § 1714(d)(1)). Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal.3d 720 (1984); Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697 (2014).

Workplace Deaths

Most workplace fatalities are handled through California workers’ compensation, which generally bars a tort lawsuit against the employer. Lab. Code § 3602. Three statutory exceptions can open the door to a wrongful death suit: (1) when the employee’s death was proximately caused by a willful physical assault by the employer; (2) when the injury was aggravated by the employer’s fraudulent concealment of the injury and its work connection; and (3) when the death was proximately caused by a defective product manufactured by the employer and transferred to an independent third person. Lab. Code § 3602(b). Outside of those situations, a family’s primary remedy against the employer is workers’ compensation death benefits, but a third-party defendant (a contractor, manufacturer, property owner) is often still liable in tort.

Criminal Acts

When a death results from a violent crime, a civil wrongful death case can proceed alongside or after the criminal prosecution. The standard of proof in civil court (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than in criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt), and the civil case can succeed even where the criminal case did not. Civil Code § 3294(d) specifically permits punitive damages in wrongful death and survival actions arising from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony.

Damages Recoverable in a California Wrongful Death Case

California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.61 sets the framework for wrongful death damages: the court or jury may award damages that, under all the circumstances of the case, are just. The cause of action belongs to the heirs personally, and the damages compensate the heirs for their own losses (financial support, services, society, companionship), not for the decedent’s pain or suffering. Faiaipau v. THC-Orange County, LLC, 117 Cal.App.5th 292 (2025); Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., 18 Cal.5th 364 (2025).

Economic Damages

Economic damages compensate the heirs for the financial losses caused by the death:

  • Loss of financial support the decedent would have provided over their working life, reduced to present value
  • Loss of household services (childcare, home maintenance, cooking, transportation, eldercare) valued at substitute-services rates. Civ. Code § 1431.2(b)(1); Williams v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, 27 Cal.App.5th 225 (2018)
  • Funeral and burial expenses
  • Loss of gifts or benefits the heirs would have received from the decedent

Calculating loss of financial support typically requires expert testimony from an economist, who applies work-life expectancy tables, expected earnings growth, and present-value discounting to the decedent’s actual earnings history and career trajectory.

Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages compensate the heirs for the personal losses that have no clear price tag:

  • Loss of the decedent’s society and companionship
  • Loss of love, affection, and moral support
  • Loss of the decedent’s care, comfort, and protection
  • For surviving children, loss of parental guidance, training, and advice (which continues well past age 18)

California law does not permit recovery for grief or sorrow itself, or for the “sad emotions and sentimental value” of the loss. Fernandez v. Jimenez, 40 Cal.App.5th 482 (2019). The compensable harm is the loss of what the decedent provided, not the heirs’ emotional reaction to the death. The distinction matters in trial presentation: the testimony that succeeds is the testimony that demonstrates the actual presence, role, and contributions of the decedent in the family’s life, not testimony focused on mourning.

Non-economic damages are not capped in ordinary wrongful death cases. They are capped only when the case is a medical malpractice action subject to MICRA (Civ. Code § 3333.2), and even then the wrongful death and survival claims get separate caps. Ng v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.5th 382 (2025).

Recovery for Minor Children

The loss of a parent has lifelong consequences. California courts recognize this by permitting recovery beyond age 18 for the loss of parental guidance, training, and advice (a parent typically continues providing support and counsel to adult children, and the loss of that resource is real). Substantial awards have been supported by evidence showing close family relationships, the absence of another parent, deterioration of the children’s academic and social functioning, and older siblings being forced to assume parental roles. Fernandez v. Jimenez, 40 Cal.App.5th 482 (2019).

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available when the responsible party acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, proven by clear and convincing evidence. Civ. Code § 3294. In wrongful death cases, the most common scenarios that support punitives are drunk driving (Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890 (1979)) and felony homicide (Civ. Code § 3294(d), permitting punitives in wrongful death and survival actions where the defendant has been convicted of a felony resulting in death).

Apportionment Among Heirs and Comparative Fault

The jury returns a single lump-sum verdict for the total wrongful death damages. The court (not the jury) then allocates the lump sum among the eligible heirs based on each heir’s individual losses. King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 82 Cal.App.5th 440 (2022).

If the decedent was partially at fault for the underlying incident, that fault is attributed to the heirs and reduces the wrongful death award proportionately. People v. Nichols, 8 Cal.App.5th 330 (2017). California’s pure comparative fault rule under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), means that even substantial fault on the decedent’s part does not bar the family’s recovery, but it does reduce it. Insurance defense teams will press hard for comparative fault findings in wrongful death cases. Pushing back on these arguments is a core part of what we do.

The Howell Limitation on Medical Expenses

For medical expenses incurred before death (recoverable in the survival action, not the wrongful death claim), California limits recovery to the amounts actually paid to providers under negotiated rates, not the gross amounts billed. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (2011); Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2013).

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Frequently Asked Questions About Sacramento Wrongful Death Cases

Who can file a wrongful death lawsuit in California?

Standing under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 belongs primarily to the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children. When there is no surviving issue, standing extends to those who would inherit by intestate succession (parents, then siblings, etc.). Putative spouses, stepchildren, and parents may have standing if they were financially dependent on the decedent. The personal representative of the estate may file the action on the heirs’ behalf, but the cause of action belongs to the heirs personally, not to the estate.

What is the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival action?

A wrongful death claim is for the family’s own losses (financial support, services, society, companionship) caused by losing the decedent. A survival action recovers what the decedent themselves was entitled to recover for harm suffered before death. The two claims compensate different parties for different losses and are typically filed together in the same complaint under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.62.

What is the deadline to file a wrongful death lawsuit?

Most California wrongful death claims must be filed within two years of the date of death under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (1999). If a public entity is potentially responsible (Caltrans, the county, the city, a public hospital, a public school district, a police agency), a written government claim must be presented to the entity within six months of the date of death under Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2. Missing either deadline almost always bars the case.

What damages can my family recover?

Wrongful death damages include economic losses (loss of financial support, loss of household services, funeral and burial expenses) and non-economic losses (loss of society, companionship, love, care, and parental guidance). The decedent’s own pre-death pain and suffering is generally not recoverable in the wrongful death claim itself. In a survival action filed on or after January 1, 2026, the decedent’s pain and suffering damages are also generally not recoverable due to the expiration of the temporary exception in § 377.34(b), with an important exception for elder abuse cases under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.

Can punitive damages be recovered in a wrongful death case?

Yes, in some cases. Civil Code § 3294 permits punitive damages where the responsible party acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, proven by clear and convincing evidence. The most common scenarios are drunk driving and felony homicide. Civil Code § 3294(d) specifically authorizes punitive damages in wrongful death and survival actions where the defendant has been convicted of a felony resulting in death.

If multiple family members want to file, do they file separately?

No. California’s “one action rule” requires all eligible heirs to bring their wrongful death claims in a single proceeding. The jury returns a single lump-sum verdict for the total damages, and the court (not the jury) then allocates the lump sum among the heirs based on each heir’s individual losses. King v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 82 Cal.App.5th 440 (2022). Hiring one experienced wrongful death firm to coordinate the case is the only practical way to comply.

What if the deceased was partially at fault for the incident?

California follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). If the decedent was partially at fault, that fault is attributable to the heirs and reduces the wrongful death award proportionately. People v. Nichols, 8 Cal.App.5th 330 (2017). Even substantial fault does not bar recovery, but it does reduce it. Insurance defense teams will press hard for comparative fault findings, and pushing back is part of what we do.

Can we sue the bar or restaurant that served the drunk driver?

Almost always, no. California’s commercial server immunity under Bus. and Prof. Code § 25602 and social host immunity under Civil Code § 1714(c) protect alcohol providers in most circumstances. The only exception is a licensed vendor that served an obviously intoxicated minor under Bus. and Prof. Code § 25602.1, or an adult who knowingly served a minor at their residence under Civ. Code § 1714(d)(1). Recovery in most drunk-driving wrongful deaths comes from the driver’s liability coverage and the family’s own UM/UIM coverage.

My loved one was killed at work. Can we sue the employer?

Generally no, due to workers’ compensation exclusivity under Lab. Code § 3602. Three statutory exceptions permit a wrongful death tort action against the employer: willful physical assault by the employer, fraudulent concealment of injury and work connection, and defective products manufactured by the employer. In other workplace deaths, the family recovers workers’ compensation death benefits from the employer and may pursue a tort action against any non-employer third party whose negligence contributed (equipment manufacturer, contractor on the site, property owner, third-party driver).

How long does a wrongful death case take to resolve?

Cases with clear liability and adequate insurance coverage can sometimes resolve within several months of a properly assembled demand. Cases involving multiple defendants, contested liability, or government claim procedures generally take longer. If we file suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, the typical litigation timeline is 12 to 24 months from filing to resolution, though catastrophic or contested cases may take longer.

How much does it cost to hire Arnold Law Firm for a wrongful death case?

Nothing up front. We handle wrongful death cases on a contingency fee basis. We collect a fee only if we recover compensation for your family. Your initial case evaluation is free.

Sacramento Areas We Serve

Arnold Law Firm represents wrongful death families throughout the Sacramento region, including downtown Sacramento, Midtown, Natomas, North Sacramento, South Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove, as well as surrounding cities including Roseville, Rocklin, Folsom, Citrus Heights, West Sacramento, and Davis. We handle wrongful death cases arising from auto and truck crashes on the major Sacramento freeways and surface streets, medical events at area hospitals, nursing home and elder care facility deaths throughout the region, and workplace incidents across the Sacramento Valley.

Contact Our Sacramento Wrongful Death Lawyers Today

If your family has lost a loved one because of someone else’s negligence or wrongdoing, time matters. The statute of limitations runs from the date of death, government claim deadlines are short, and the investigation that builds case value is best done early. Call Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 for a free, no-obligation case evaluation. We will listen, explain your family’s options in plain language, and tell you honestly whether we believe we can help.

We work on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for your family.

LATEST NEWS

Industrial chemical storage tank with emergency response equipment, illustrating the Garden Grove methyl methacrylate leak incident

Garden Grove Methyl Methacrylate Leak at GKN Aerospace: Legal Rights for Evacuated Residents

Patrick Luff May 23, 2026

May 24, 2026 UPDATE: Significant developments since this article was first published See “Major Developments Since the Leak Began” below for details. More than 50,000 Orange County residents have been ordered out of their homes since Thursday afternoon after a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove began leaking methyl methacrylate, a highly flammable, toxic industrial chemical. Orange County Fire Authority officials have publicly warned that the compromised tank is expected to fail and may explode. If you live, work, attend school, or own a business inside the evacuation zone, you may be entitled to compensation for the costs and harms you have already incurred, and for those still to come. This page explains, in plain

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor. After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.