A recent case handled by Charlotte Waller , one of our specialist personal injury solicitors , illustrates this.

The claim arose from a road traffic collision on a 70mph by-pass and highlighted several important lessons. In particular, it showed how mixed witness evidence, the deceased’s own actions, and, crucially, the long-term needs of dependants all shape the final value of the claim.

The circumstances of the accident

On 12 June 2022 at around 7:20am, a 46-year-old man suffered a fatal accident on a three-lane dual carriageway. Evidence suggested that his car had overheated, and he pulled over to the left-hand side of the road.

While standing on the carriageway, he was struck by a van. The driver later pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

At first glance, the facts might seem straightforward, but as is often the case, the detail told a more complicated story.

Mixed witness evidence - why facts aren’t always clear-cut

One of the most striking features of the case was the variation in witness accounts:

• One witness believed the vehicle’s doors were closed and thought hazard lights may have been on
• Another said the car was protruding into the carriageway, with no hazard lights, and saw the deceased moving between the bonnet and driver’s door
• A third witness, arriving after the collision, did not recall seeing any lights at all

There was also evidence that:

• The deceased may have been standing at the front of the vehicle before returning to the driver’s door
• The driver’s door was open at the point of impact, likely protruding into the live lane

These differences matter. In litigation, small factual disputes can influence liability, but not always in the way people expect.

The key legal issue - contributory negligence

Despite the defendant’s guilty plea, the case was not one of full liability. This is because the evidence suggested the deceased may have:

• Failed to stop his vehicle fully within the hard shoulder/grass verge
• Failed to use his hazard lights
• Walked onto the carriageway/stood on the carriageway

This is where the principle of contributory negligence come in. This is where the injured (or deceased) person is found partly responsible for the harm they suffered.

Importantly, issues like whether hazard lights were on, or whether the car was slightly over the line, were not considered decisive. What did matter was that the deceased was likely standing in a live lane and exposed to danger.

He had also arguably failed to follow basic Highway Code guidance, which advises drivers to move away from vehicles and traffic after a breakdown.

As a result, a 20% reduction was applied to the overall value of the claim.

The claim - who was dependent?

The claim was brought by the widow under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, on behalf of:

• Herself, as his wife 
• Their two teenage children
• His elderly mother who he sent money to on a regular basis

This is where the case becomes particularly important, because when there are dependants, the focus shifts from the past to the future.

Why future losses matter so much

In fatal accident claims, a large part of the compensation relates to what the deceased would have provided in the future, including:

• Income
• Household services
• Childcare
• Support into later life

In this case, future dependency was the largest and most complex part of the claim.

Financial dependency

There was a possibility that the deceased might increase his earnings over time, potentially moving into IT work as he had related qualifications. However, we couldn’t find any evidence to support this. He hadn’t previously worked in that field and there was no evidence that he’d tried to pursue a higher-paid role. This significantly reduced the projected future income.

Services dependency

This is often overlooked but is hugely important. The deceased had always contributed to:

• Household maintenance
• Childcare
• General domestic support

The impact of contributory negligence

After calculating the full value of the claim, the 20% reduction for contributory negligence was applied. It’s important to note that the reduction applied to the entire claim, including future losses. This is why getting the future dependency calculation right is so very important.

The final outcome

The claim eventually settled at £525,000, apportioned across:

• The widow (majority share, including financial and services dependency)
• The two children (each for loss of financial and intangible benefits)
• The deceased’s mother (modest financial dependency)

Key takeaway: think long-term, not just immediate loss

Charlotte, commented: “This case highlights a crucial point, in fatal accident claims involving dependents, the future is everything. Its not just about funeral costs and bereavement awards. The real value often lies in lost income over decades to come, lost support in raising the children, lost contributions to the home. Even modest weekly contributions, when looked at over many years, can result in substantial figures.

“No amount of compensation can undo the emotional toil of losing a loved one. But with a good understanding of the law, and a realistic assessment of future needs, we can provide financial stability for those left behind.

“The strength of a fatal accident claim often lies not in what has been lost already, but in what would have been provided for years to come.”