This seems so wrong to me. The death of a child (or multiple instances of it) is not going to change how a company operates. Neither will the trial and the force of law, and the public exposure. What is law for, then? I mean it rhetorically, of course, and not directed at you personally.
A couple of points. First, there's no guarantee that you get more at trial. In most jurisdictions comparative fault would be an issue. Not to be cold, but the defense will be able to argue that a 2 year old shouldn't have been allowed to play around a trash truck, and that if parents or whoever had been doing their job this wouldn't have happened. And therefore, caregiver's negligence should offset their liability.
Two, the death of a child very likely changed how the company operates. Companies are run and operated by people, and the death of a child affects everyone.
Third, insurance is likely involved. Thus the idea that taking the case to trial is going to change behavior more than settling now, is unlikely.
I suppose the bottom line is, the case has a value. Wrongful death cases get tried and the attorneys and insurance companies keep track of those results. If the submitter is being offered something close, he should take it. If not, either tell his attorney to negotiate for more or get a new attorney.
On an individual basis for the victim's families there is no amount of money. But, unfortunately, as a society we regularly agree to a value.