A playground is designed to be the best place for kids to play in safety. However, not all playgrounds were built with safety features thus kids getting into accidents are quite common.
In Washington, there was a case filed by the parents of a ten year old boy who have suffered an irreversible brain injury right after he fell from an 8-foot high playground. The play ground was believed to be made of asphalt which is not considered to be safe for kids to play around. Because of the irreversible brain damage to the child, the settlement has finally awarded him with more than enough financial aid for the rest of his life. The amount of money that was granted was by far one of the most expensive among playground injury lawsuits won by any individual.
According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, asphalt playgrounds are not safe for kids. The same thing goes for packed earth and concrete surfaces because they are hard and can easily cause trauma and severe injuries to little ones. Because kids are normally clumsy at times, playgrounds should only be built in soft surfaces like sand, rubber mats, and rubber. This way serious injuries and damage can be avoided and prevented.
Playgrounds should be built with accordance to the safety standards required by the state. Should anyone operate a playground for children who did not follow the guidelines, the chances for kids getting hurt during the play can be very high. Thus, the operator will most likely be held responsible and accountable for any incidents that result to injuries of children using the playground.
It was estimated that about five hundred children under 15 were at some point of their lives have been treated in the ER due to playground injuries caused by poor equipment. Among the most fatal injuries are believed to be due to falls.
The boy who has been granted a huge sum of settlement got his brain injury from a fall while playing in an asphalt surfaced playground in a nearby apartment complex in their area. Medical records showed that the boy suffered internal bleeding in the frontal lobe of his brain leaving him in a coma state and eventually woke up a week after. The lawsuit was filed at the operator of the playground and was later on sentenced to pay a huge sum of settlement for the injured boy.

A $22 million medical malpractice verdict was slapped at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation after a Menlo Park, California woman lost the use of her arms and legs from a stroke she suffered while undergoing an unnecessary surgical procedure for her migraine.
In 2006, the plaintiff Robyn Frankel, then 43 years old, was seeking treatment for her migraines which she had her entire life. A number of non-invasive imaging procedures such as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) were done for her. On October 20, 2006, physicians from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation ordered a cerebral angiogram for her. This procedure involved injecting a special dye (contrast material) to see how blood flows through her brain and to help doctors inspect if there’s an abnormal vein that was present. The brain angiogram was done at the Stanford Hospital and Clinics as the medical foundation did not have the necessary facilities.
During the procedure, Frankel had a reaction to the dye when it was injected into her blood vessels. She suffered vasospasm and stroked out. Frankel fell into a coma and awoke a quadriplegic two weeks later.  With no function on her right side and limited function on her left, she requires full-time care. It was a life-changing event for Frankel who had two young kids and worked as a property manager for her family’s business.
During the trial, Frankel’s attorney brought in experts who testified that the cerebral angiogram procedure was not medically needed. Experts said that the brain angiogram was an unnecessary medical procedure and that the vein had no connection with Frankel’s migraine. It was also found out that Frankel was not informed how risky the invasive procedure was and she was not given informed consent.
The medical malpractice case was filed originally in 2008 but was dismissed in 2010 according to Summer Woodson, one of Frankel’s lawyers. The firm with Mitchell managed to reopen the case.
In March 2012, the Santa Clara County Superior Court jury handed down the verdict finding Palo Alto Medical Foundation negligent. Frankel was awarded $22 million, the largest medical malpractice verdict in the county. This included $16 million for past and future economic losses and $6 million for pain and suffering. The pain and suffering award will be reduced to $250,000 in compliance with the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975. Stanford Hospital and Clinics was also named in the 2008 medical malpractice lawsuit, but opted to settle on the first day of the trial.

The first question that comes to the mind of an injury victim is whether he needs a lawyer or not. There is a possibility that your insurance company may cover all your medical expenses when it comes to injuries such as bruises, scrapes and so on. They may even agree to take care of the costs and damages of your vehicle. If this is the case, you do not need an injury lawyer. However, in case your injury is serious you should not hesitate calling an attorney. You should know that insurance companies will offer you settlements but you should not be quick to jump ship no matter how good the settlement is. You really need a lawyer in such situations. Let us look at a few reasons why it is prudent to get in touch with one.
Valid negotiations
There is no counter argument that lawyers make good negotiators. This is a fact that insurance companies are aware of and due to this reason, they will devise ways that may lure you into agreeing to settle quickly. This is because they know that what they are offering is a lot less than you deserve. Good injury lawyers are aware of this and they can negotiate with the insurance company on your behalf so that you are not duped.

2. Insurance company lawyers are good

As I said, lawyers are good negotiators and this includes insurance company lawyers. I know that you may think you are clever and crafty but you should know that an insurance company lawyer has vast experience when it comes to several specific issues. If you are taking on such a lawyer alone, there is no way you will come out on top. The only way to catch a thief is by thinking like one and the only person who thinks like a lawyer is another lawyer.

3. An injury lawyer is experienced

An injury lawyer has probably dealt with many cases before yours. Experience is a good teacher and this means that a lawyer knows a lot of ways which you can use to get your full compensation plus more. He can even push your case to court. Sometimes you may think that you deserve some compensation that in real sense is actually lesser than you deserve. An injury lawyer will tell you exactly how much you are supposed to get and will come up with a way in which you will get it.

4. Guidance

You will be provided with guidance in case the case goes to court. I know that you may want to speak in court. Most probably if you speak, the defendant lawyer will find something in your statement that he may use against you. He may even lead you into goofing up the whole case so that it is even thrown out. If you want to speak and you have a good lawyer, you will only say the right things and in the end come out with something that is rightfully yours.