In April 2026, Tesla quietly settled the Edgar Monserratt Martinez wrongful death lawsuit in Broward County, Florida — just days before the case was set to go to trial. The settlement terms were undisclosed, but the case carried enormous legal weight because of what happened in its companion trial four years earlier. In 2022, a jury evaluated a nearly identical Tesla Autopilot crash involving Barrett Riley and assigned Tesla just 1% of the fault on a $10.5 million verdict. That single percentage point meant Tesla’s financial exposure was approximately $105,000 — not $10.5 million. The rest evaporated under comparative fault rules.
That 2022 outcome is one of the most striking real-world illustrations of how comparative fault wrongful death damages work — and why the fault percentage assigned to a decedent or their family can be far more consequential than the gross damages figure itself. This calculator walkthrough breaks down exactly how the math changes depending on which state’s fault system applies, using the same $2 million damage baseline across four different legal frameworks.
The Tesla Verdicts: A Case Study in Comparative Fault Wrongful Death Damages
The Barrett Riley crash occurred when a teenage driver with a history of speeding allegedly manipulated his Tesla Model S to disable a speed restriction his father had requested. The 2022 jury found Barrett Riley 90% at fault, his father James Riley 9% at fault, and Tesla only 1% negligent — resulting in a $10.5 million gross verdict that translated to roughly $105,000 in actual recovery from Tesla. The Martinez case presented a meaningfully different comparative fault posture: the deceased was a passenger with no control over the vehicle’s speed, which typically makes it far more difficult to assign contributory negligence to that party. That distinction likely influenced Tesla’s decision to settle before the Martinez jury could weigh in.
Since an August 2025 Miami federal jury returned a $243 million Autopilot verdict in the Benavides case, Tesla has quietly settled at least four additional wrongful death suits. The pattern underscores a critical strategic reality: comparative fault wrongful death damages are not just a legal doctrine — they are a litigation lever that defendants use to dramatically reduce or eliminate financial exposure. Understanding which system governs your case is the first step in understanding what recovery is realistically possible. For context on how large these verdicts can grow, consider that a Harris County, Texas jury awarded $640 million to the family of David Loree II in 2025 — one of the largest wrongful death verdicts in Texas history — a number that would still be subject to reduction under Texas’s modified comparative fault rules if any portion of fault were assigned to the decedent.
The Four Comparative Fault Systems (and How Each One Cuts Damages)
Every state uses one of four legal frameworks to handle situations where the decedent or their survivors share some degree of responsibility for the fatal event. The differences between these systems are not subtle — under the most restrictive rule, a family with even 1% of fault walks away with nothing. You can review how individual states have codified these rules through Justia’s comparative negligence overview, which tracks statutory frameworks across all 50 states. It is also worth noting that these frameworks are not static: Louisiana transitioned from a pure comparative fault system to a modified 51% bar rule effective January 1, 2026, meaning families whose decedent is found 51% or more at fault are now completely barred from recovery in that state.
Pure Comparative Fault
Margaret Whitfield is a Wrongful Death and Survivor Rights Advisor with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing wrongful death claims only (high value) cases, Margaret helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Margaret is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.