People often debate the necessity of personal injury representation, a profession plagued by derogatory labels such as “ambulance chasers” or the like. Yes, there are cases where people try to sue for clearly inappropriate things, such as a burglar suing a homeowner for injuries received in the commission of a burglary. However, these cases are not the rule. They simply gain more attention because of their blatant hypocrisy, often obscuring more legitimate cases that validate the purpose of personal injury advocacy.

Consider the circumstances of Jacob Buckett. Jacob fell from a playground structure at a Burger King restaurant, injuring his lungs and brain when he hit an unpadded floor made of hard tile.  Jacob was hospitalized for four months, has persistent brain damage, and is undergoing continual rehabilitation.

Burger King's response was typical, alleging that Jacob's father was responsible for his child's safety. Yet this Burger King store did not have easy-landing rubber tiles around play areas or clearly marked warning signs about climbing too high like many other restaurants do.  In addition, most restaurant play areas are not sized to fit the average adult, making child supervision in some spaces or areas difficult.

When someone is injured, any number of laws can be applied depending on the location and circumstances of the incident as well as the victim's age and a host of other factors. Those in the wrong are almost universally sure to acquire representation to protect their interests. Unfortunately, it can seem somehow ignoble for the victim to do the same. But personal injury advocates are a necessary part of society. For Jacob Buckett, personal injury representation worked. He and his family were awarded a $20 million settlement, the majority of which will likely go to settling the substantial medical costs required for the care of Jacob's injuries.

Related Content:  Child Injuries, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)