California juries are delivering a clear message to negligent corporations and individuals: preventable deaths carry severe financial consequences. In 2025, the state has witnessed some of its largest wrongful death verdicts on record, with multimillion-dollar awards signaling a dramatic shift in how jurors value human life and corporate accountability. This shift reflects not just legal changes but a deeper cultural one. Post-COVID, juries tend to recognize the emotional weight of these losses more personally, and that recognition is showing up clearly in their verdicts.
A Record-Breaking Year
From a construction site wrongful death case in downtown Los Angeles that was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals in March 2025, to a $29.5 million medical malpractice verdict (later reduced under California’s cap), California wrongful death cases continue to demonstrate evolving legal standards and significant stakes.
While some 2025 cases remain in litigation, including a high-profile cruise ship wrongful death lawsuit, recent years have seen verdicts including a $150 million trucking crash award near Sacramento and a $27 million construction site verdict in Los Angeles, demonstrating that California juries continue to issue substantial damage awards in wrongful death cases.
In Texas, a similar case resulted in a staggering $640 million verdict for a construction crane accident tried in Harris County.
California has historically led the nation in substantial wrongful death awards, with an average of approximately $973,054, and a median of around $294,728. Individual verdicts regularly exceed these figures, especially when gross negligence or corporate malfeasance is involved. For example, a federal jury awarding $30.5 million to the family of Mickel Lewis Sr. in a police shooting case, a verdict described as one of the largest such awards in California history. From what I’ve seen over the years, the core valuation of life in these cases has stayed remarkably consistent. What has changed is jurors’ willingness to deeply empathize with families and reflect that understanding in the numbers they award.
Why Are Verdicts Climbing?
Several factors are driving these historic awards. Jurors appear increasingly unwilling to accept corporate negligence as simply the cost of doing business. Cases involving construction safety violations, impaired driving, and inadequate safety protocols are drawing particularly harsh judgments. The emotional and financial devastation experienced by families–from lost future earnings to the immeasurable loss of companionship and support—resonates powerfully in courtroom settings.
Additionally, California’s legal framework has evolved to strengthen patterns of plaintiffs’ positions. A recent legislative change allows families to seek compensation for decedent’s pain, suffering, and disfigurement in certain cases, expanding the scope of recoverable damages beyond traditional economic losses.
The Punitive Damages Question
Understanding punitive damages in California wrongful death cases requires careful legal navigation. California law generally bars punitive damages in wrongful death actions, with a narrow exception for felony homicide convictions. However, families can pursue punitive damages through separate survival actions filed on behalf of the deceased’s estate.
Under California Civil Code section 3294, punitive damages are only awarded in survival actions when the plaintiff proves the defendant acted with malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct. This distinction matters significantly. While wrongful death claims compensate families for their losses, survival actions can punish defendants for particularly egregious behavior, such as drunk driving, corporate negligence involving known defects, or extreme recklessness.
These punitive awards serve dual purposes: punishing wrongdoers and deterring similar conduct by others. When combined with wrongful death verdicts, the financial impact on negligent parties can be substantial. In practice, these punitive findings often align with what jurors already feel: a growing societal demand for accountability and a recognition that preventable loss of life warrants a strong response.
Implications for Businesses
For employers, contractors, and transportation companies, these verdicts represent more than legal outcomes; they’re wake-up calls. Construction companies face particular scrutiny over scaffolding safety, fall protection, and worker training. The transportation sector, including autonomous vehicle operators and trucking companies, must demonstrate robust safety protocols and adequate oversight.
The message from California juries is unambiguous: cutting corners on safety to reduce costs will prove far more expensive in the courtroom. Companies must prioritize worker protection, maintain rigorous safety standards, and ensure compliance with state and federal regulations. The cost of prevention pales in comparison to multimillion-dollar verdicts.
The trend toward higher verdicts also encourages settlement negotiations. Companies increasingly recognize that taking cases to trial risks astronomical jury awards, leading to more substantial pre-trial settlements that acknowledge the true cost of negligence. Families’ stories can deeply resonate with jurors, and that understanding has fundamentally changed how defendants evaluate their exposure.
Moving In the Right Direction
These record verdicts reflect broader societal expectations about corporate responsibility and human life valuation. This trend represents a long-overdue acknowledgement of the real and devastating human impact involved in these cases—an evolution that is driven as much by empathy as by legal standards.
The legal landscape has shifted decisively toward accountability, and California’s record of wrongful death verdicts is setting precedents that will resonate throughout the nation for years to come. As we enter 2026, legal experts anticipate the trend will continue.
