I was working on a job site and I fell 40 feet and I broke some bones... I was deciding whether I wanted to sue or not, and when my boss didn't pick up the tab, I decided to call an attorney. I called Mike and he got me my check. He's very firm in his decision making. He handles his business. Dealing with this law firm has made me pretty happy. I'm glad that I chose Mike Grossman. If I hadn't decided to sue and went with Mike, I probably wouldn't have gotten anything. Mike Grossman is a very good attorney. You can look on the internet and see that he basically wins everything he gets his hands on. He's a member of Million Dollar Advocate Club, so what more could you need?
-
T. Young
Workplace Accident Case
Fatal Playground Accidents
Wrongful Death Attorney Michael Grossman Explains Your Legal Options After Losing a Loved one in a Fatal Playground Accident
The numbers involving playground accidents are simply staggering. According to statistics provided by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, about 200,000 people are injured every year in playground accidents, with most of these people being young children below 15-years-old.
Sadly, approximately 10-15 of these children are killed as, falling, hanging, entrapment, impact with moving equipment, or exposure to sharp and dangerous protrusions can all be fatal, killing 147 children between 1990 and 2000.
Generally, fatal playground accidents tend to happen on private playgrounds, with 70 percent of the playground deaths in the 1990s occurring on home play sets. Of these, many of the deaths occurred due to improper maintenance and upkeep of the playgrounds. Thus, if your child died in a playground accident, you may have the right to seek compensation through premises liability lawsuit.
Whenever you or your child or anyone else visits someone’s property, you all have the expectation that the property owner will provide you with certain standards of safety, as property owners owe certain standards of well-being to the various different kinds of visitors who come to their property. Thus, if your child was killed why playing on someone else’s playground equipment, then you may have the right to pursue compensation through a premises liability lawsuit if the property owner failed in his or her duty of providing for your child’s safety.
Granted, we know that if you have indeed lost a child in a fatal playground accident, your heart is certainly broken. Even thinking about a lawsuit may be near to impossible for you at the moment. However, your family has likely suffered significantly financially in addition to your emotional scarring. Often times, it’s impossible for families to overcome the emotional impact of losing a child without first recovering financially.
At Grossman Law Offices, Michael Grossman and his team of attorneys have been tackling premises liability cases in Arkansas and Texas for 20 years, so we have the necessary expertise to guide you to the compensation that will not only enable your family to begin recovering financially, but will also bring the party responsible for your child’s death to justice.
However, it should be noted that not all fatal playground injuries are actionable. Some may sadly be the fault of the child or his or her parent, and some may be no one’s fault at all. Thus, we want to provide you with this brief informative article that will give you a better idea of whether or not you have a legitimate wrongful death premises liability lawsuit. If you would like more informed advice about your case, then call Grossman Law Offices today for a free consultation at 1-855-589-5645 (toll free).
Types of Visitors
As we’ve already briefly suggested, property owners owe different levels of safety to different types of visitors to their playground, and there are generally three types of visitors in the eyes of the law:
- Invitee
A party willfully and consciously visiting a property so that both he or she and the property owner can benefit. A good example of this would be a child playing in the playground of a fast food restaurant. The restaurant has benefited with the business provided by the child’s family, and the child has benefited with the sheer joy of playing in the playground. - Licensee
A party willfully and intentionally entering a property for the sole benefit of the visitor. An example would be a child who goes over to a friend’s house to play on the friend’s backyard play set. - Trespasser
Someone who willfully and deliberately entered into a property illegally and without the permission of a property owner. A group of kids who have illegally broken into a park after curfew would be an example of trespassers.
Legal Duties Owed to Different Visitors
Invitees are provided the greatest amount of protection from harm by a negligent property owner, followed by licensees, and finally trespassers, as property owners owe three different duties of providing safety:
- Seeking out dangerous conditions and warning visitors. For instance, if the recent rains have made the concrete surrounding a fast food restaurant playground slick, allowing for a soft-headed toddler to slip and fall.
- Warning of any pre-existing dangers. If the ladder leading up into a tree house is missing a rung, then any child climbing up the tree must be warned.
- Not intentionally harming the child. If the other child pushed yours off the swings, then his or her parents could be held responsible.
Invitees are owed all three duties, but licensees only must be warned of pre-existing dangers and not intentionally harmed. Trespassers are only protected against intentional attacks. If a kid who snuck into a playground after hours, ignoring the sign saying the park was closed after dark, falls off the equipment and is fatally wounded, then his or her parents are owed no compensation.
Pursuable Restitution After a Fatal Playground Accident
When your child has been killed while playing on playground equipment due to the property owner’s inability to provide the required safety, then you may have the right to seek compensation through a premises liability lawsuit, seeking both wrongful death damages and survival damages. Wrongful death damages are intended to give the parents the right to seek compensation for the individual suffering they have incurred both economically and emotionally as a result of their child’s death. Such wrongful death damages may include:
- Loss of the unique familial love the child provided.
- Funeral bills.
- Mental and emotional anguish.
Survival damages, on the contrary, are intended to provide damages to compensate the deceased victim for his or her suffering, allowing the victim’s closest living relative to serve as his or her proxy. This right passes from parent to sibling and may include compensation for:
- Medical expenses.
- The child’s pain and suffering.
- The child’s mental and emotional anguish.
Sure, anyone can prove up damages for a medical bill just by producing the bill itself, but proving the value of other non-economic damages is highly subjective in nature and requires the expertise of someone with extensive familiarity with these issues. Only someone who has handled hundreds of other wrongful death cases knows how to accurately assess a delicate issue like the value of a dying child’s pain and suffering or a mother’s mental and emotional anguish.
How Grossman Law Offices Can Help
Succeeding with a premises liability case requires proving that the property owner had a legal duty to your child and failed to provide that duty, leading to the accident and your child’s subsequent death. To do so requires a skilled and seasoned premises liability lawyer who knows how to investigate to find the necessary evidence and then use the fruits of that investigation to plan a successful trial or settlement strategy.
For two decades and counting, the attorneys at Grossman Law Offices have been litigating wrongful death cases involving premises liability laws in both Arkansas and Texas. Thanks to our tireless work in court and at the negotiating tables, hundreds of grieving parents have been able to secure millions and millions of dollars after losing their children in fatal accidents. Our firm is well-known among both insurance companies and defense lawyers, and our reputation often encourages them to negotiate fairly rather than face losing time and money against our lawyers in a trial. If you’ve lost a child in a fatal playground accident, then call us as soon as you fell able to discuss your case with a knowledgeable professional. We offer a free consultation at 1-855-589-5645 (toll free), so call us now and discuss your situation with someone who can help. You can get your questions answered and discover what legal options you have available. Don’t let your child’s death go unpunished. Take legal action now.
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$25,000.00
Our attorneys sued an apartment complex in relation to a brain injury sustained by a toddler when he fell through a balcony railing. The apartment complex denied liability, asserted that their railings were in spec at the time of the building's construction (some 20 years prior), and they claimed that the child's mother was contributorily negligent in that she did not notice that her child was playing near the railing.
Through litigation, our attorneys countered the defendant's arguments by showing that the case law does not support the notion of any safety related concerns in the building code being "grandfathered" in. On the contrary, a property owner has an obligation to keep safety features such as balcony railings within the specs at all times. The railings in this complex were spaced at 7 inch intervals, which was at odds with the now-standard 4 inch interval.
Additionally, our attorneys countered the claims of contributory negligence as a practical matter in that the mother was indeed monitoring the child's activity and the child literally ran up to the railing and immediately fell through the rails. Alternatively, we argued that the doctrine of parental immunity applied and that the contributory negligence, if any such negligence ever even occurred, of the mother would not be admissible. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
$350,000.00
$115,500.00
$5,000.00
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$3,200,000.00
$1,280,000.00
$50,000.00
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene.
Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers.
Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts.
We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person.
Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$2,000,000.00
$775,000.00
$25,000.00
Recovery for client who sustained contusions and a sprained ankle in a premises liability accident.
$100,000.00
$37,272.00
$1,730.00
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
Recovery for client who suffered contusions and a soft tissue knee injury in a slip and fall.
$50,500.00
$19,102.00
$265.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Recovery for family of victim who died after receiving the wrong medication.
$625,000.00
$206,250.00
$5,000.00
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00