Trial testimony in a wrongful death matter asks the economist to translate a household's loss into a number the jury can follow: what the decedent earned and would have earned, what the decedent would have spent personally, what the decedent did in the home, and what each of those streams is worth today. Demonstratives should show the components separately and, where the framework requires it, by survivor. The opposing economist will usually differ on consumption, worklife, and household services, and the direct examination should explain those choices before cross so the jury hears the reasoning first.
Checklist
Prepare demonstratives for the earnings stream, the consumption deduction, household services, and support by survivor
Prepare a plain-language explanation of consumption and why it is deducted
Prepare a comparison of the two economists' consumption, worklife, and household services assumptions
Rehearse direct examination on how the survivors' account of household services was documented
Confirm the present value explanation and the discount rate source
Questions to ask the economist
How will you explain the consumption deduction without making it sound like the decedent's worth is being reduced?
How will you show household services in a way the jury can picture?
Where do you and the opposing economist differ, and what does each difference move?
How will you present the loss by survivor if the framework requires it?
Timeline
One to two preparation sessions in the week before testimony, after the demonstratives are drafted and the opposing report has been analyzed.
Required documents
The final report with the consumption, worklife, and household services tables
Draft demonstratives
The survivor documentation relied on for household services
The opposing economist's report and deposition transcript
Common pitfalls
Presenting the consumption deduction as a technicality rather than explaining what it measures
Showing household services as a lump sum instead of hours, tasks, and rates the jury can evaluate
Leaving the discount rate source unexplained, which the opposing side uses to suggest the total is arbitrary
How is the household services loss made concrete for a jury?
By showing the tasks the decedent performed, the hours they took in a typical week based on the survivors' account and time-use data, the cost of hiring someone to do each, and how long the need continues. Presented that way the figure is a replacement cost the jury can check against its own experience.
How should the economist testify when the framework separates the estate's claim from the survivors' claims?
By presenting the components on separate boards that match the framework: the survivors' lost support, services, and benefits on one, and any accumulation to the estate on another, with no figure appearing on both. The direct examination walks the jury through each board and states which claim it belongs to. Counsel and the court decide how the verdict form uses them.
What should the economist avoid saying about the decedent?
Anything that reads as a judgment about the decedent's worth as a person. The testimony is about earnings, consumption, household work, and support, each measured from records and data, and the consumption deduction should be explained as what the decedent would have spent on personal needs rather than as a reduction of the decedent's value. A measured tone serves the number better than advocacy.
References
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE). U.S. Department of Labor. bls.gov
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). American Time Use Survey (ATUS). U.S. Department of Labor. bls.gov
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983). supreme.justia.com