For families told their loved one "caused it" — and for attorneys researching how to recover when the decedent's own conduct is the centerpiece of the defense. In California, a decedent's fault reduces a recovery; it does not erase it. The work is proving the defendant's share.
Some of the hardest wrongful-death cases are the ones where the decedent did something that contributed to their own death. Insurers love these files — they assume no lawyer will touch them and no jury will care. That assumption is wrong, and California law is the reason.
California is a pure comparative fault state
In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, the California Supreme Court replaced the old all-or-nothing rule with pure comparative fault. Under it, a plaintiff's (or decedent's) own fault reduces the recovery in proportion to that fault — but it does not bar the claim, even when the decedent bears the majority of the blame. A decedent who was 70% responsible does not leave the family with nothing; a responsible defendant still answers for its 30%. That single principle is what makes a "their own fault" case winnable.
The real question: did someone else's negligence help cause the death?
The defense wants the jury looking only at the decedent. The case is won by widening the lens to the party who could have prevented the death. Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to those on their premises (Civil Code § 1714; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108). When a death happens at a residential property, the owner's own failures are frequently part of the chain of causation — missing or non-working smoke alarms, blocked or inadequate exits, unsafe balconies, railings, or windows. The decedent's conduct may have started the sequence; the owner's neglect is often what made it fatal.
Two hard cases, one principle
In a case our firm handled, a fire was started by the decedent himself. The insurer treated it as a closed door. We recovered for the family on a preventable-conditions theory — the property's own safety failures were part of what turned a survivable event into a death.
In another, the decedent had a blood-alcohol level several times the legal limit and fell from a height at an apartment property. Again the defense led with the decedent's intoxication. And again, the comparative-fault rule and the property's own responsibility for an unsafe condition allowed us to recover for the family. Results depend on the unique facts of each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.
Who can bring the claim
California limits who may sue for wrongful death to a defined class — the surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and certain other heirs and dependents — under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60. Getting the right plaintiffs and the right theory in place early is part of building a case that survives the defense's first attack.
Frequently asked questions
Can we recover if our loved one was partly to blame?
Yes. Under Li v. Yellow Cab, comparative fault reduces but does not bar recovery — even if the decedent was mostly at fault.
What if they were intoxicated?
Intoxication is one fact a jury weighs; it does not automatically end the case if another party's negligence also caused the death.
How can a landlord be responsible for a death?
Through the duty of reasonable care (Civil Code § 1714; Rowland v. Christian) — e.g., non-working smoke alarms, unsafe egress, or dangerous balconies and railings.
Who can file?
The heirs defined by Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 — typically a spouse/partner, children, and certain dependents.
The bottom line
"They caused it themselves" is the first thing the defense says and the last thing the law accepts as the end of the inquiry. If someone else's negligence helped cause the death, the family can recover — and a family should not be turned away because the case looks hard.
Lost someone in a preventable death? Talk to us.
Free, confidential consultation, even in cases other firms call unwinnable. We welcome referrals and co-counsel from other attorneys (fee splits honored under Rule 1.5.1).
Request a ConsultationResults depend on the unique facts of each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Responsible for content: Tom Vertanous, Esq., The Vertanous Firm, P.C., SBN 330760 — (626) 888-2223.