After the tragic loss of a loved one due to the fault of another, it is essential to deal carefully with compensation issues 

Life is varied, not only in its joys and sorrows, but also in the extremely painful events that have lifelong consequences. Dainius Antanaitis, attorney at AVOCAD, discusses the issues of damages and loss of earnings in very painful cases where a spouse is killed in a traffic accident due to the fault of the other .

According to the lawyer, it is natural that, in the state of mind caused by such an event, the relatives of the deceased, including the spouse, are least concerned about the legal aspects of the consequences caused by the perpetrator. "However, these issues have to be dealt with very carefully. And here I would like to draw attention not to the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator who caused the accident, but to the damage caused by the death of the spouse who was not at fault for the accident," says Dainius Antanaitis.

The death caused by a road accident normally results in both material and non-material damage to the person whose spouse has been killed, which must be covered by the compulsory third-party liability insurance of the perpetrator's motor vehicle. As regards damage to property, it should be noted that it is usually understood as destruction or damage to property, loss, expenses. For example, this could be funeral expenses. However, here the lawyer reminds us of another type of property damage - loss of income.

The case law on the loss of income of a spouse due to the death of the other spouse in a road accident is quite detailed and very broad, says Dainius Antanaitis, but the key points to be aware of are:

• Civil liability is generally imposed for damage caused, but civil liability can also be imposed for future damage that can be proven;

• the established case-law and the presumption in law that the deceased spouse has contributed to the maintenance of the family, it can reasonably be assumed that the surviving spouse loses the share of the future income that would have accrued to the surviving spouse had the other spouse not died;

• the loss of income is calculated as follows: determine how long the deceased spouse would have been expected to live according to the average life expectancy of the person as published by the Department of Statistics and add together the deceased spouse's total average monthly earnings and any monthly pensions he or she would have received until the end of his or her expected life expectancy, and divide the result by half.

"In simple terms, the spouse of the person killed in the accident has the right to claim from the perpetrator's compulsory third-party motor insurance ½ of the income that the deceased spouse would have earned if he or she had not been killed, i.e. up to the end of the average life expectancy," notes the AVOCAD lawyer.

However, Dainius Antanaitis, a lawyer, points out that if a middle-income earner is killed in a road accident 10 years before retirement, for example, adding up all the earnings up to the age of retirement, plus the pensions he would have received up to the end of his life expectancy, and then dividing it by two, would give a quite significant sum. Not only that, but if you add the amount of non-pecuniary damages on top of that, which can also be quite significant, the insurer may have to pay quite a lot of money to the spouse of the victim.

Naturally, insurance companies don't always pay the amount demanded without agreeing to it or part of it. In this case, the injured party should seek justice in court. "Neither the person nor the insurer can be 100% sure which way the scales of justice will tip in any particular case. Therefore, litigation does not sound attractive to either of them. And here the insurer can offer a "compromise". For example, an agreement whereby the insurer agrees to pay a solid amount of non-pecuniary damages, but in this agreement the person already refuses to claim another solid amount from the insurer - the loss of earnings," the lawyer points out an important legal point.

He said that, although case law makes it reasonable to conclude that a person is likely to recover both consequential damages and loss of earnings, a risk-averse person may choose to take the sparrow's hand by signing a contract with the insurer to resolve the issue permanently.

However, it happens that a person may realise that signing the contract was a mistake, which may have been due to a variety of reasons (e.g. emotional experiences due to the death of their spouse, lack of knowledge, etc.) and that the loss of income, which they would probably have been able to claim, is very much needed in the household and in the various life worries that they have been left with alone after the death of their spouse.

Therefore, the lawyer says, it is important to think carefully before deciding whether to sign such a compromise agreement with the insurer and to consult a lawyer if you still have doubts.