Case Details: A 10 year old boy was hit by a train and killed in Florida. The parents are suing the train company because they say the train did not have a good enough warning system to prevent people from going on the train tracks. The train company says they have the same warning systems as all the other train companies and follow all Federal and local laws, so they did nothing wrong.

Civil Complaint:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO: 2022-CA-000001

JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, as parents and natural guardians of JAMES DOE, deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
XYZ TRAIN COMPANY,
Defendant.

--------------------------------

COMPLAINT

--------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a wrongful death action brought by Plaintiffs, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, as parents and natural guardians of JAMES DOE, a minor child, who was tragically struck and killed by a train operated by Defendant, XYZ TRAIN COMPANY.

2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's failure to maintain an adequate warning system at the train crossing where the incident occurred directly contributed to the untimely and tragic death of their son, JAMES DOE.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3. Plaintiffs, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, are the natural parents and legal guardians of JAMES DOE, who was a minor child at the time of his death.

4. Defendant, XYZ TRAIN COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

5. On or about January 1, 2022, JAMES DOE was near the train tracks operated by XYZ TRAIN COMPANY at the crossing located near the intersection of Main Street and 1st Avenue in Miami, Florida.

6. At that time and place, a train operated by XYZ TRAIN COMPANY approached the crossing.

7. Despite the approach of the train, no adequate warning was given to alert JAMES DOE of the imminent danger. The warning system in place was insufficient and failed to provide a timely and effective warning.

8. As a direct and proximate result of the inadequate warning system, JAMES DOE was struck by the train and sustained injuries that resulted in his death.

9. At all times material hereto, XYZ TRAIN COMPANY had a duty to maintain a safe and effective warning system at the train crossing to prevent such tragic incidents.

10. XYZ TRAIN COMPANY breached this duty by failing to maintain an adequate warning system at the crossing, thereby causing the wrongful death of JAMES DOE.

11. As a direct and proximate result of XYZ TRAIN COMPANY's negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress, loss of companionship, loss of support, and other damages.

Count I: Negligence

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, was negligent in its duty to provide a safe environment for the public, including the decedent, a minor child. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its warning system, which directly resulted in the tragic death of the minor. To establish negligence, we must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The Defendant, as a train company, has a duty to ensure the safety of the public by implementing effective warning systems. We will argue that the Defendant breached this duty by failing to provide a warning system that was adequate to prevent such accidents. Expert testimony will be used to demonstrate that the warning system was not up to the standard of care expected of a reasonable train company. We will establish causation by showing that, but for the inadequate warning system, the minor would not have been on the tracks and would not have been struck by the train. Finally, we will prove damages through the presentation of evidence regarding the minor's death and the resulting emotional and financial harm suffered by the parents.

Count II: Breach of Duty

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, breached its duty of care to the public, including the deceased minor, by failing to implement an adequate warning system to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. The duty of care, in this context, refers to the obligation of the train company to ensure the safety of individuals who may come into contact with its operations. To establish this breach, we will demonstrate that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, which we will argue is inherent in their operation of a potentially dangerous enterprise in a public space. We will then show that this duty was breached by presenting evidence of the inadequacy of the warning system, such as expert testimony on industry standards and comparative analysis with warning systems in other jurisdictions. We will also provide evidence of the foreseeability of the accident, emphasizing that the Defendant could and should have anticipated the risk of individuals, particularly children, accessing the tracks. Finally, we will link this breach of duty directly to the tragic death of the minor, establishing causation between the Defendant's negligence and the fatal accident.

Count III: Foreseeability

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, should have foreseen the potential for harm due to inadequate warning systems, and their failure to take appropriate measures to prevent such harm resulted in the tragic death of the minor. Foreseeability is a critical element in establishing negligence, and we will argue that the Defendant had a duty of care to ensure that their warning systems were sufficient to prevent accidents. We will present evidence showing that despite the Defendant's claim of adhering to Federal and local laws, the warning systems in place were not adequate to prevent individuals, particularly children, from accessing the train tracks. Expert testimony will be used to demonstrate that other feasible and more effective warning systems exist, which the Defendant could have implemented. We will also present statistical data on similar accidents in the industry, emphasizing that the risk was not only foreseeable but also preventable. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's adherence to industry standards does not absolve them of their responsibility, as the standard itself may be insufficient to ensure public safety.

Count IV: Failure to Warn

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to provide adequate warning systems to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks, resulting in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a duty to ensure the safety of individuals near its train tracks, which includes providing sufficient warning systems to deter access. Despite the Defendant's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws, the Plaintiff asserts that the standard warning systems were insufficient in this particular case, and the Defendant was negligent in not implementing additional measures. To prove this, we will present expert testimony on the effectiveness of various warning systems and demonstrate that more effective alternatives were available and reasonably implementable. We will also provide evidence of similar incidents at the same location or other locations under the Defendant's control, if any, to establish a pattern of negligence. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's reliance on the industry standard does not absolve them of their duty of care, especially when the standard itself may be inadequate.

Count V: Strict Liability

Strict liability refers to the legal responsibility for damages or injury, even if the person or entity found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. In this case, the parents allege that the train company is strictly liable for the death of their child. To establish strict liability, we must prove that the train company was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity, that the dangerous aspect of the activity was the actual and proximate cause of the child's death, and that the child suffered harm. The operation of a train, particularly in a populated area, can be considered an abnormally dangerous activity due to the potential for severe harm if something goes wrong, such as a pedestrian being struck. We will present evidence showing that the train company's operation of the train was the actual cause of the child's death, and that it was foreseeable that a pedestrian could be struck if adequate warning systems were not in place. We will also provide evidence of the harm suffered by the child and his parents as a result of his death. This evidence may include medical records, witness testimony, and expert testimony regarding the dangers of train operation and the adequacy of the train company's warning systems.

Count VI: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself." In this count, we assert that the accident in question could not have occurred without negligence on the part of the defendant, the train company. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies when the accident is of a type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. We will prove these elements by demonstrating that a train hitting a pedestrian, especially a child, is not a common occurrence and typically indicates negligence. We will present evidence showing that the train and its warning systems were under the exclusive control of the defendant. We will also show that the child did not voluntarily place himself in harm's way, but rather, the inadequate warning system failed to alert him of the approaching danger. By establishing these elements, we aim to hold the train company liable for the tragic loss of the child's life.

Count VII: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is liable under the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. This doctrine holds that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk. The Plaintiff asserts that the train and its tracks, being inherently attractive to a child's curiosity, constitute an attractive nuisance. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent access to this attractive nuisance or to warn of the dangers it posed. To prove this count, we will establish that the train and its tracks were an artificial condition that the Defendant knew or should have known posed a risk of death or serious bodily harm to children. We will demonstrate that the child, due to his age, did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved. We will also show that the utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight compared with the risk to children. Finally, we will prove that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the child.

Count VIII: Failure to Maintain

In this count, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to adequately maintain its warning system, which directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's negligence in maintaining an effective warning system constitutes a breach of their duty of care towards the public, including the deceased. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that the warning system was not functioning properly at the time of the incident. This may include expert testimony on the expected standards of maintenance for such systems, photographic or video evidence of the malfunctioning system, and maintenance records from the Defendant. We will also demonstrate the causal link between this failure to maintain and the accident by showing that a properly functioning warning system would have prevented the child from being on the tracks at the time of the accident. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws does not absolve them of their responsibility to maintain their equipment, as these laws represent the minimum standard of care, not the maximum.

Count IX: Violation of Industry Standards

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, violated industry standards by failing to implement an adequate warning system to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks, thereby causing the wrongful death of the minor. The Plaintiff will demonstrate that the Defendant's warning system was not up to par with the generally accepted practices within the train industry, despite the Defendant's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws. Evidence will be presented to show that other train companies, operating under similar circumstances, have more effective warning systems in place. Expert testimony from industry professionals will be used to establish the standard of care expected in the industry and to illustrate how the Defendant's warning system fell short of this standard. Additionally, the Plaintiff will show that the Defendant's failure to meet industry standards directly resulted in the minor's tragic death, thereby establishing causation. The Plaintiff will seek to recover damages for the loss of their child's life, pain and suffering, and other related costs.

Count X: Wrongful Death

In this count, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, the train company, is responsible for the wrongful death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to provide adequate warning systems to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks, which directly resulted in the tragic death of their child. To establish this claim, we will need to prove four elements: (1) the death of a human being; (2) caused by the Defendant's wrongful conduct; (3) that the Defendant was negligent, or in strict liability, for the victim's death; and (4) that the Plaintiffs, as the deceased's parents, are entitled to monetary damages. The death of the Plaintiffs' son is an undisputed fact. We will demonstrate the Defendant's wrongful conduct and negligence by presenting expert testimony on the standard of care in the train industry, showing that the Defendant's warning systems were insufficient and fell below this standard. We will also present evidence of similar incidents at the Defendant's train tracks, if any, to establish a pattern of negligence. Finally, we will provide evidence of the Plaintiffs' relationship with their deceased son, their emotional distress, and any financial loss they suffered due to his untimely death to establish their entitlement to damages.

Count XI: Loss of Consortium

Loss of Consortium refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by the defendant. In this case, the parents of the deceased child are claiming that the train company's inadequate warning system led to their son's death, thereby depriving them of the love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, moral support, and (in the case of a minor child) the potential for future financial support. To prove this count, we will need to demonstrate the close and loving relationship that existed between the parents and their son, which can be substantiated through testimonies from family members, friends, and teachers. We will also present evidence of the child's potential future earnings, which can be calculated based on his age, health, life expectancy, character, and earning potential. Furthermore, we will need to establish that the train company's negligence directly resulted in the child's death and the subsequent loss of consortium. This can be proven by demonstrating that the warning system was indeed inadequate, which can be supported by expert testimonies, comparison with warning systems in other jurisdictions, and any previous incidents or complaints related to the same train company.

Count XII: Punitive Damages

The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from the Defendant, the train company, for their gross negligence and disregard for public safety. Punitive damages are awarded in cases where the defendant's conduct is found to be particularly egregious or outrageously careless. The Plaintiff will argue that the train company's failure to implement an effective warning system, despite knowing the potential risks to public safety, constitutes gross negligence. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that the train company was aware of the dangers associated with their inadequate warning system, such as previous incidents or complaints, and yet chose not to take any corrective action. We will also bring in expert witnesses to testify that there are more effective warning systems available that the train company could have used. This will demonstrate that the train company's conduct was not only negligent but also reckless, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

Count XIII: Emotional Distress

The Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, they have suffered severe emotional distress, including but not limited to, grief, sorrow, mental anguish, shock, humiliation, and indignity. The Plaintiffs will prove this count by demonstrating that the Defendant's conduct was so outrageous and extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The Plaintiffs will present evidence of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate warning systems, despite the foreseeable risk of harm to individuals, particularly children, who may inadvertently venture onto the train tracks. Expert testimony will be used to establish the standard of care in the industry and to show that the Defendant's conduct fell below this standard. The Plaintiffs will also provide medical and psychological evidence, including testimony from mental health professionals, to substantiate their claims of emotional distress. Personal testimony, as well as testimony from friends, family, and coworkers, will be used to illustrate the profound impact this tragedy has had on the Plaintiffs' lives.

Count XIV: Survival Action

Under the Survival Action, the parents of the deceased minor assert that their son experienced pain and suffering from the moment of the accident until his untimely death. The parents, as representatives of their son's estate, seek compensation for the pain and suffering their son endured, as well as any medical expenses incurred between the accident and his death. To prove this count, we will present medical records and expert testimony to establish the extent of the boy's injuries and the duration of his suffering. We will also provide evidence of any medical expenses incurred. Furthermore, we will argue that the train company's failure to implement an adequate warning system directly resulted in the accident, causing the boy's pain, suffering, and eventual death. Despite the train company's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws, we will argue that the standard warning systems were insufficient in this particular case, and that the company had a duty to ensure the safety of individuals near their tracks beyond merely adhering to the minimum legal requirements.

Count XV: Premises Liability

In this count, we assert that the train company is liable for the tragic death of the minor due to their failure to maintain a safe environment around their premises, specifically the train tracks. The elements needed to prove premises liability include establishing that the train company owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; that the company was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; that the minor was harmed; and that the company's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the minor's harm. We will prove these elements by presenting evidence of the inadequate warning system in place, which we argue constitutes negligence. Expert testimony will be used to demonstrate that a more effective warning system could have been implemented and that the existing system did not meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable train company. We will also provide evidence of the harm caused to the minor, including the fatal injuries sustained from the train collision. Lastly, we will establish causation by showing that the inadequate warning system was a substantial factor in the minor's decision to go onto the tracks, leading to his untimely death.

Count XVI: Failure to Train

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to adequately train its employees in the operation of the train and the use of warning systems, thereby contributing to the tragic death of the minor. The Plaintiff will establish this claim by demonstrating that the Defendant had a duty to ensure its employees were properly trained, that this duty was breached, and that this breach directly resulted in the minor's death. Evidence will be presented showing that the Defendant's training protocols were inadequate or not properly enforced, leading to the failure of the warning system. Expert testimony will be used to establish the standard of care expected in the industry and to show how the Defendant's training fell short of this standard. Additionally, the Plaintiff will present evidence of similar incidents involving the Defendant's trains, if any, to demonstrate a pattern of negligence. The Plaintiff will also seek to prove that the minor's death was a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant's failure to train, thereby establishing causation.

Count XVII: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, negligently inflicted emotional distress upon them, the parents of the deceased child. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's failure to implement an adequate warning system, despite the foreseeable risk of harm to individuals, particularly children, resulted in the tragic death of their son, causing them severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, we will demonstrate the following elements: (1) the Defendant had a legal duty to provide a safe environment, which includes an effective warning system; (2) the Defendant breached this duty by failing to do so; (3) this breach directly resulted in the death of the Plaintiff's son; and (4) the Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a direct result of their son's death. We will present expert testimony to establish the inadequacy of the warning system and eyewitness testimony to establish the distress suffered by the Plaintiffs. We will also provide medical records and psychological evaluations to substantiate the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs.

Count XVIII: Economic Damages

The Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, they have suffered and will continue to suffer significant economic damages. These damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of their son's future earnings, the cost of medical and funeral expenses, and the loss of potential inheritance. To establish this claim, we will present evidence of the boy's potential earning capacity, which will be calculated based on average earnings for individuals with similar backgrounds and education levels. We will also provide receipts and invoices for all medical and funeral expenses incurred as a result of the accident. Additionally, we will present expert testimony to establish the reasonable expectation of future earnings and potential inheritance. This will demonstrate the financial impact of the loss of the boy's life on his family, thereby establishing the economic damages they have suffered due to the Defendant's negligence.

Count XIX: Non-Economic Damages

The Plaintiffs seek non-economic damages for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of companionship, and loss of enjoyment of life they have experienced as a direct result of the untimely and tragic death of their minor child. We will prove these elements through the testimony of the parents, family members, and mental health professionals who can attest to the profound grief and emotional trauma the parents have endured. We will also present evidence of the child's close relationship with his parents, his role in the family, and the joy and fulfillment he brought to their lives. Additionally, we will demonstrate the negative impact on the parents' quality of life, including their inability to enjoy previously pleasurable activities and the emotional toll of living without their child. The train company's failure to implement an adequate warning system, despite their adherence to minimum federal and local standards, directly led to these non-economic damages.

Count XX: Negligent Inspection

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, was negligent in its duty to inspect and maintain a safe and effective warning system to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's failure to adequately inspect and maintain the warning system directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. To establish negligence, the Plaintiff must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The Defendant, as a train company, has a duty to ensure the safety of its operations, including the warning system. The Plaintiff will argue that the Defendant breached this duty by failing to adequately inspect and maintain the warning system. Expert testimony will be used to demonstrate that a reasonable train company under similar circumstances would have conducted more thorough inspections and maintenance. The Plaintiff will then establish causation by showing that the Defendant's breach directly resulted in their son's death. This can be proven through eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage, and accident reconstruction experts. Finally, the Plaintiff will demonstrate damages by providing evidence of their son's death and the resulting emotional and financial hardship.

Count XXI: Failure to Comply with Safety Regulations

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to comply with safety regulations, specifically those pertaining to the implementation and maintenance of adequate warning systems to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's negligence in this regard directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. To prove this count, we will present evidence demonstrating that the warning system in place was insufficient, despite the Defendant's claim of adhering to Federal and local laws. We will engage expert witnesses in the field of railway safety to testify that the warning system was not up to the standard required to ensure public safety. We will also present comparative studies of warning systems used by other train companies, highlighting any discrepancies and superior safety measures. Furthermore, we will provide evidence of any previous incidents or near misses on the Defendant's tracks, indicating a pattern of negligence. Through these means, we aim to establish that the Defendant failed to comply with safety regulations, thereby causing the avoidable death of the Plaintiff's child.

Count XXII: Negligent Design

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, is liable for negligent design, as they failed to implement an adequate warning system to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. The Plaintiff will argue that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, a foreseeable user of the train tracks, to design a warning system that would effectively deter individuals from entering a potentially dangerous area. The Plaintiff will demonstrate that the Defendant breached this duty by failing to design a warning system that was sufficient to prevent the tragic accident. Expert testimony will be used to establish the standard of care in the industry and to show that the Defendant's warning system fell below this standard. The Plaintiff will also present evidence to prove that the Defendant's negligent design was the proximate cause of the boy's death, as a more effective warning system would have prevented him from accessing the tracks. Finally, the Plaintiff will show that the boy's death resulted in damages, including emotional distress and loss of companionship for the parents, which are compensable under Florida law.

Count XXIII: Failure to Implement Safety Measures

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to implement adequate safety measures to prevent individuals, particularly minors, from accessing the train tracks, thereby leading to the tragic death of the Plaintiff's minor child. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a duty of care to ensure the safety of individuals in the vicinity of their operations, which they breached by not having a sufficient warning system in place. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that despite the Defendant's claim of adhering to Federal and local laws, the warning system they had in place was not effective in preventing the minor from accessing the tracks. We will bring in expert witnesses in the field of railway safety to testify that the warning system used by the Defendant was not up to the standard expected of a reasonable train company. We will also present comparative studies of warning systems used by other train companies that have proven to be more effective in preventing such accidents. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's failure to implement a more effective warning system was a direct and proximate cause of the minor's death, as evidenced by the fact that the minor was able to access the tracks despite the warning system in place.

Count XXIV: Negligent Supervision of Minors

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed in its duty of care to ensure the safety of minors, including the deceased, by not implementing adequate warning systems to prevent them from accessing the train tracks. This constitutes negligent supervision of minors. To establish this claim, we will demonstrate that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the minor, which they breached by not providing sufficient warning systems. We will argue that a reasonable train company, aware of the potential harm to minors, would have taken additional precautions. We will present expert testimony to show that the existing warning systems were inadequate and that better, reasonably affordable systems are available and used in other jurisdictions. We will also provide evidence of similar incidents at the same location to establish a pattern of negligence. Furthermore, we will prove causation by showing that the inadequate warning system directly resulted in the minor's access to the tracks and subsequent death. Finally, we will demonstrate that the parents have suffered significant damages as a result of their child's untimely death.

Count XXV: Failure to Provide Adequate Fencing

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to provide adequate fencing along the train tracks, which is a breach of their duty of care towards the public, including the deceased minor. This failure, the Plaintiff contends, directly resulted in the tragic accident that led to the loss of their child. To prove this count, we will present evidence showing that the area where the accident occurred lacked sufficient fencing or other protective barriers that could have prevented the minor from accessing the tracks. We will bring in expert witnesses in the field of railway safety to testify that despite the Defendant's claim of adhering to Federal and local laws, the absence of adequate fencing in such areas is a significant safety oversight. We will also compare the fencing standards of the Defendant with those of other train companies in similar settings to demonstrate that the Defendant's safety measures were subpar. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant, being a train company, should have foreseen the potential danger posed by the lack of adequate fencing, and their failure to address this issue constitutes negligence.

Count XXVI: Failure to Provide Adequate Signage

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to provide adequate signage warning of the dangers of the train tracks, which directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a duty of care to ensure that the train tracks were safe for the public, which includes providing clear and visible warning signs. The Plaintiff will argue that the Defendant breached this duty by failing to provide sufficient signage, and this breach was a proximate cause of their son's death. To prove this, the Plaintiff will present evidence of the signage at the location of the accident, including photographs and expert testimony, to demonstrate that it was insufficient to warn of the dangers of the train tracks. The Plaintiff will also present comparative evidence from other train companies and locations to show that the signage used by the Defendant was not up to industry standards. Furthermore, the Plaintiff will provide testimony from witnesses and experts to establish that the lack of adequate signage was a significant factor in the accident, and had proper signage been in place, the accident could have been prevented.

Count XXVII: Negligent Maintenance of Premises

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, negligently maintained its premises by failing to provide an adequate warning system to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks, resulting in the tragic death of the Plaintiff's minor child. To establish this claim, we will demonstrate that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the child, which we will argue includes the responsibility to maintain a safe environment around the train tracks. We will present expert testimony to show that the warning system in place was insufficient and below the standard of care expected of a reasonable train company under similar circumstances. We will also provide evidence, such as photographs and witness testimonies, to illustrate the lack of adequate warning signs, barriers, or other safety measures at the location of the incident. Furthermore, we will prove causation by showing that the inadequate warning system directly led to the child's access to the tracks and subsequent death. Lastly, we will demonstrate the damages suffered by the parents due to the loss of their child, which includes emotional distress and loss of companionship. Despite the Defendant's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws, we will argue that such compliance does not absolve them of their duty to maintain a safe premises, especially when they are aware of the potential risks posed by the train tracks.

Count XXVIII: Failure to Follow Standard Operating Procedures

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to follow standard operating procedures which directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiff contends that despite the Defendant's claim of having the same warning systems as other train companies and adhering to all Federal and local laws, the Defendant did not adequately implement or maintain these systems, thereby failing to provide sufficient warning to prevent individuals from entering the train tracks. To prove this, we will present evidence of the warning system in place at the time of the incident, including photographs, videos, and expert testimony to demonstrate its inadequacy. We will also compare the Defendant's warning system with those of other train companies to highlight any discrepancies. Furthermore, we will provide testimonies from other individuals who have encountered similar issues with the Defendant's warning system. Lastly, we will present evidence of the Defendant's standard operating procedures and demonstrate how they were not followed or were insufficient to prevent such incidents. This evidence will establish that the Defendant's failure to follow standard operating procedures was a direct and proximate cause of the tragic incident, thereby making them liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

Count XXIX: Failure to Respond to Known Risks

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to respond adequately to known risks associated with the operation of their trains, specifically the risk of pedestrians accessing the train tracks due to insufficient warning systems. This failure constitutes negligence on the part of the Defendant, as they had a duty of care to ensure the safety of individuals in the vicinity of their operations, were aware or should have been aware of the potential risks, and failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks. To prove this count, we will present evidence demonstrating that the Defendant was aware of previous incidents or near-misses involving pedestrians on the tracks, suggesting a known risk. We will also present expert testimony to establish that the warning systems in place were inadequate compared to industry standards or available alternatives. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's failure to improve their warning systems after becoming aware of the risk directly resulted in the tragic death of the 10-year-old boy, thereby establishing causation. Lastly, we will demonstrate the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the loss of their child, which is the damage resulting from the Defendant's negligence.

Count XXX: Failure to Conduct Risk Assessment

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to conduct a proper risk assessment of their warning system, thereby breaching their duty of care towards the public, including the deceased minor. This failure to assess and mitigate foreseeable risks contributed to the tragic accident, resulting in the wrongful death of the minor. To prove this count, we will present expert testimony to establish the standard of care expected of train companies in conducting risk assessments. We will also provide evidence of similar accidents at the same location or involving the same train company to demonstrate a pattern of negligence. Additionally, we will seek to obtain internal documents, memos, or emails from the Defendant that may indicate a lack of risk assessment or disregard for safety concerns. We will argue that a reasonable train company, under similar circumstances, would have conducted a thorough risk assessment and taken necessary precautions to prevent such accidents. Therefore, the Defendant's failure to do so constitutes negligence and they should be held liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

Count XXXI: Failure to Implement Risk Management Strategies

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to implement adequate risk management strategies to prevent accidents such as the one that resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. Despite the Defendant's claim of adhering to Federal and local laws, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not take additional, reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of accidents, particularly in areas where children are likely to be present. The Plaintiff will prove this by demonstrating that the Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, of the potential risks posed by their trains to pedestrians, especially children, and yet failed to implement sufficient safety measures beyond the minimum required by law. Evidence will be presented showing that other train companies in similar situations have implemented additional safety measures, such as fencing, pedestrian overpasses, or advanced warning systems, thereby establishing a standard of care that the Defendant failed to meet. Expert testimony will be used to establish what constitutes reasonable risk management strategies in the train industry, and to show that the Defendant's actions fell short of these standards. The Plaintiff will also present evidence of the Defendant's financial ability to implement these additional safety measures, thereby demonstrating that the failure to do so was not due to financial constraints but rather a disregard for public safety.

Count XXXII: Negligent Training

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to adequately train its employees in safety protocols and procedures, thereby negligently contributing to the tragic death of the minor. The Plaintiff will establish the elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The Defendant had a duty to ensure its employees were properly trained to operate the train safely, particularly in areas where pedestrians could potentially access the tracks. Evidence will be presented to demonstrate a breach of this duty, such as training records, employee testimonies, and comparison to industry standards. The Plaintiff will argue that this breach directly resulted in the minor's death, establishing causation. Expert witnesses will be called upon to testify that with proper training, the accident could have been prevented. Finally, the Plaintiff will demonstrate the damages suffered as a result of the Defendant's negligence, including the emotional and financial toll on the family due to the loss of their child.

Count XXXIII: Failure to Comply with Industry Best Practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to comply with industry best practices in relation to the implementation and maintenance of warning systems designed to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. This failure, the Plaintiff contends, directly contributed to the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. To prove this count, we will engage the services of an expert witness, preferably a safety engineer or a professional with extensive experience in the railway industry, who can testify as to what constitutes industry best practices for warning systems. We will also present evidence, such as photographs, videos, and maintenance records, to demonstrate the inadequacy of the warning system in place at the time of the incident. Furthermore, we will compare the Defendant's warning system with those of other train companies, particularly those that have not experienced similar accidents, to highlight the Defendant's failure to adhere to industry best practices. We will argue that, despite the Defendant's claim of compliance with Federal and local laws, the standard of care owed to the public, especially to vulnerable individuals like children, extends beyond mere legal compliance and includes adherence to the best practices within the industry.

Count XXXIV: Negligence Per Se

In this count, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, is liable under the doctrine of Negligence Per Se. This doctrine applies when a defendant violates a statute or regulation, and that violation causes the type of harm the statute or regulation was designed to prevent. Here, the Plaintiff will argue that the train company violated safety regulations related to warning systems, and this violation directly led to the tragic death of their son. To prove this, we will first need to establish that there is a statute or regulation that the train company violated. We will conduct a thorough review of federal and local laws and industry standards related to train warning systems. We will then need to demonstrate that the train company's violation of this statute or regulation caused the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs. We will present evidence, including expert testimony, to show that a proper warning system would have prevented the boy from being on the tracks and thus, his death. Finally, we will show that the boy is within the class of persons the statute or regulation was designed to protect, and his death is the type of harm it was designed to prevent.

Count XXXV: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, is liable for the physical harm that resulted in the death of their minor child and the subsequent emotional harm suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their child's untimely death. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to provide adequate warning systems to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks, thereby breaching their duty of care. To establish liability for physical and emotional harm, we will need to prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. We will demonstrate that the Defendant had a duty to ensure the safety of individuals near its train tracks, which they breached by failing to implement sufficient warning systems. Expert testimony will be used to show that a more effective warning system could have prevented the tragic incident. We will then establish causation by showing that the Defendant's breach directly resulted in the child's death and the parents' emotional distress. Finally, we will prove damages through medical records, psychological evaluations, and testimony from family and friends to illustrate the emotional toll the incident has taken on the Plaintiffs.

Count XXXVI: Liability for Dangerous Conditions Known to or Discoverable by Possessor

This count alleges that the train company, as the possessor of the train and the tracks, had a duty to ensure that the conditions were not dangerous to individuals, particularly children, who might come into contact with them. The parents argue that the train company knew or should have known that the warning system was inadequate to prevent people, especially children, from going onto the tracks, thus creating a dangerous condition. To prove this count, we will need to establish that the train company was aware of the potential danger posed by the inadequate warning system, or that the danger was such that they should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. We will present expert testimony to demonstrate that the warning system was insufficient and that a reasonable train company would have recognized this. We will also present evidence of other incidents involving the same or similar warning systems to show that the train company should have been aware of the danger. Finally, we will argue that the train company failed to take reasonable steps to correct the dangerous condition, leading to the tragic death of the 10-year-old boy.

Count XXXVII: Liability for Known or Obvious Dangers

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, is liable for the known or obvious dangers presented by their inadequate warning system. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, of the potential danger their train tracks posed to the public, particularly to children, due to the lack of sufficient warning systems. Despite this knowledge, the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, resulting in the tragic death of the Plaintiff's child. To establish this claim, we will present evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of the Defendant's warning system compared to industry standards and best practices. We will also provide expert testimony to establish that the Defendant's warning system was insufficient to alert a child of the impending danger. Furthermore, we will argue that the Defendant's compliance with Federal and local laws does not absolve them of their duty to ensure the safety of the public, especially when they are aware of the potential risks. We will also present evidence of similar incidents or near misses on the Defendant's train tracks to prove that the Defendant had knowledge of the danger their train tracks posed.

Count XXXVIII: Duty of Those in Control of Premises to Third Persons

This count alleges that the train company, as the entity in control of the premises (the train tracks), had a duty to ensure the safety of third persons, including the deceased child. The company failed to fulfill this duty by not having an adequate warning system in place to prevent individuals from accessing the tracks. To prove this count, we will first establish that the train company had control over the premises and thus had a duty of care towards third persons. This can be demonstrated through ownership documents and operational records. Next, we will show that the company breached this duty by not having a sufficient warning system. Expert testimony will be used to compare the warning system of the defendant with industry standards and best practices. We will also present evidence of other incidents where individuals were able to access the tracks due to the inadequate warning system. Finally, we will prove that this breach of duty directly resulted in the child's death. This will involve presenting evidence that the child would not have been on the tracks if a proper warning system had been in place, such as witness testimony and any available surveillance footage.

Count XXXIX: Liability for Providing Chattel for Use by Person Known to be Incompetent

This count alleges that the train company is liable for providing a dangerous instrumentality, the train and its associated tracks, for use by a person known to be incompetent, in this case, a 10-year-old child. The law recognizes that certain entities, such as train companies, have a heightened duty of care when their operations inherently pose a risk of serious harm. To establish this claim, we will need to prove that the train company knew or should have known that children, who are legally considered incompetent, could access the train tracks. We will present evidence of the proximity of the tracks to residential areas, schools, and playgrounds, and argue that the train company should have foreseen the risk of children wandering onto the tracks. We will also argue that the train company's warning system was inadequate to deter children, who may not fully understand the danger. Expert testimony will be used to establish the standard of care that the train company should have exercised, and eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, and accident reports will be used to demonstrate that this standard was not met.

Count XL: Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer

In this count, we assert that the train company, as the seller of a product (the train service), is specially liable for the physical harm caused to the user or consumer (the deceased child). This liability arises from the failure of the train company to ensure that their product is safe for use by the public, particularly children. To establish this, we will demonstrate that the train company, despite claiming to follow all Federal and local laws, failed to provide an adequate warning system to prevent individuals, especially children, from accessing the train tracks. We will present expert testimony to show that the warning system in place was not sufficient to deter a child from venturing onto the tracks. We will also provide comparative analysis of warning systems used by other train companies, both domestically and internationally, to illustrate that safer and more effective alternatives exist. Furthermore, we will argue that the train company, being in the business of providing a potentially dangerous service, has a higher duty of care to ensure the safety of the public. We will also present evidence of the devastating impact of the loss of the child on the parents, to establish the extent of the physical harm caused.

Count XLI: Duty of Those in Control of Activities to Others

This count alleges that the train company, being in control of the activities related to the operation of the train, had a duty to ensure the safety of others, including the deceased child. The company's duty extends beyond mere compliance with federal and local laws; it includes taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The parents argue that the company failed in this duty by not having an adequate warning system to prevent people from going onto the tracks. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that the existing warning system was insufficient to deter a child from entering the danger zone. Expert testimony will be used to establish what constitutes a 'reasonable' warning system, and we will argue that the company's system fell short of this standard. We will also demonstrate that the company could have foreseen the risk of harm to children, given the proximity of the tracks to residential areas or schools, and thus had a duty to take additional precautions. The causation element will be established by showing that the inadequate warning system directly resulted in the child's tragic death.

Count XLII: Duty to Prevent Harm from Dangerous Activities

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, breached its duty to prevent harm from dangerous activities, specifically, the operation of a train without adequate warning systems to prevent individuals from accessing the train tracks. The Plaintiff will establish that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, a duty that extends beyond mere compliance with Federal and local laws. This duty, inherent in the operation of potentially dangerous activities such as running a train service, requires the Defendant to take all reasonable steps to prevent harm, including implementing effective warning systems. The Plaintiff will demonstrate that the Defendant breached this duty by failing to provide a warning system that was sufficiently effective to prevent the tragic incident. Expert testimony will be used to show that despite the Defendant's claim of having the same warning systems as other train companies, there exist more effective warning systems that could have been implemented. The Plaintiff will also present evidence to prove that this breach of duty directly resulted in the fatal accident, causing the parents to suffer emotional distress and financial loss. The Plaintiff will seek monetary damages for the wrongful death of their child, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship.

Count XLIII: Violation of Federal Regulations Regarding Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

This count alleges that the defendant, the train company, violated federal regulations pertaining to the use of locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade crossings, specifically 49 CFR §222.21, which requires that the locomotive horn be sounded at a certain decibel level and within a specific distance from the crossing. The plaintiff asserts that the train company failed to adhere to these regulations, thereby contributing to the tragic accident that resulted in the death of their son. To prove this count, we will present evidence including the testimony of witnesses who were present at the time of the accident, who can attest to the fact that the horn was not sounded as required. We will also introduce expert testimony from an acoustics specialist who can provide evidence regarding the decibel level of the horn, and a railway safety expert who can testify about the required distance from the crossing at which the horn should have been sounded. Additionally, we will present any available video or audio recordings from the scene of the accident, as well as any relevant maintenance records or operational logs from the train company that may indicate a failure to comply with the federal regulations.

Count XLIV: Violation of Federal Regulations Regarding Grade Crossing Signal System Safety

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, violated Federal Regulations pertaining to the safety of Grade Crossing Signal Systems, specifically 49 CFR § 234.255, which mandates that each highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system, but in no event shall it provide less than 20 seconds warning time for the approach of a train. The Plaintiff contends that the warning system in place at the time of the incident did not provide adequate warning time, thereby contributing to the tragic accident that resulted in the death of their son. To prove this, we will present expert testimony from a railroad safety engineer who will testify that the warning system did not activate in accordance with the design or provided less than the federally mandated 20 seconds warning time. We will also present video evidence, if available, and eye-witness testimonies to corroborate this claim. Furthermore, we will demonstrate that the Defendant was aware or should have been aware of the malfunctioning warning system, yet failed to take corrective action, thereby breaching their duty of care.

Count XLV: Violation of State Regulations Regarding Railroad-highway Grade Crossings

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, violated state regulations pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings, which resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to maintain adequate warning systems at the crossing, which is a breach of their duty of care as per Florida state regulations. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that the warning system in place was not up to the standards set by the state regulations. This may include expert testimony on the adequacy of the warning system, photographic or video evidence of the crossing, and comparison with other similar crossings. We will also demonstrate that this violation directly led to the accident, causing the death of the child. This causation will be established through accident reconstruction experts, who will testify that with a proper warning system, the accident could have been avoided. Finally, we will show that the parents suffered damages as a result of their son's untimely death, including emotional distress and loss of companionship, which are compensable under Florida law.

Count XLVI: Comparative Fault

In this count, we assert that the train company shares a significant portion of the fault for the tragic accident that led to the death of the minor. The principle of comparative fault allows for the apportionment of liability in proportion to the degree of fault of each party involved. We will argue that the train company's warning system was inadequate, regardless of its compliance with Federal and local laws. We will present expert testimony to establish that the train company could and should have implemented more effective warning systems, such as advanced technology or additional physical barriers, to prevent such accidents. We will also present evidence of similar accidents at other locations where the train company operates, to demonstrate a pattern of negligence. We will argue that the train company's failure to go beyond the minimum legal requirements in ensuring safety constitutes a significant degree of fault. We will also present evidence to show that the minor was not entirely at fault, such as his age and lack of understanding of the dangers posed by the train tracks. This evidence will be used to argue for a reduction in the percentage of fault attributed to the minor, thereby increasing the train company's share of the liability.

Count XLVII: Premises Liability for Transitory Foreign Substances in a Business Establishment

This count alleges that the train company failed to maintain a safe environment by allowing a dangerous condition, namely a transitory foreign substance, to exist on their premises. In this context, the "transitory foreign substance" refers to the inadequate warning system that the parents believe contributed to their son's tragic accident. To establish premises liability, we must prove four elements: (1) the train company had a duty to maintain a safe environment; (2) the company breached this duty by failing to provide an adequate warning system; (3) this breach directly resulted in the boy's death; and (4) the parents suffered damages as a result. We will present evidence showing that the warning system was insufficient, such as expert testimony on industry standards and comparisons with warning systems in other jurisdictions. We will also provide evidence of the boy's death and the resulting emotional and financial harm to the parents. By proving these elements, we aim to establish that the train company is liable for the boy's death due to their negligence in maintaining a safe environment.

Count XLVIII: Violation of State Regulations Regarding Damages. This count alleges that the defendant, the train company, violated specific state regulations that pertain to the safety measures and warning systems required to prevent accidents and damages. The parents contend that the train company's warning system was inadequate, thereby leading to the tragic death of their son. To prove this, we will first identify the specific state regulations that the train company allegedly violated. We will then present evidence, such as expert testimony and safety inspection reports, to demonstrate that the train company's warning system did not meet these regulatory standards. We will also show that the train company's failure to comply with these regulations directly resulted in the boy's death. This could involve presenting evidence that similar accidents have occurred on the same train tracks, indicating a pattern of negligence. Furthermore, we will argue that the train company's assertion that they follow the same warning systems as other companies and comply with federal and local laws does not absolve them of their responsibility to adhere to specific state regulations.

Count XLIX: Violation of State Regulations Regarding Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Tort Actions

This count alleges that the train company, by failing to maintain an adequate warning system, violated state regulations that waive sovereign immunity in tort actions. Sovereign immunity typically protects government entities and their contractors from being sued, but this immunity can be waived if the entity fails to meet certain safety standards. In this case, the parents argue that the train company, as a contractor of the government, failed to meet the safety standards required by Florida law, thus waiving their sovereign immunity and opening themselves up to a lawsuit. To prove this, we will need to demonstrate that the train company is indeed a government contractor, that Florida law requires certain safety standards for train warning systems, and that the train company failed to meet these standards. We will use expert testimony to establish the inadequacy of the warning system, and we will present evidence of the train company's contractual relationship with the government. We will also cite the specific state regulations that the train company violated, and we will argue that these violations directly led to the tragic death of the 10-year-old boy.

Count L: Failure to Reduce Hazards at Railroad-highway Grade Crossings

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to adequately reduce hazards at the railroad-highway grade crossing where the tragic incident occurred, thereby breaching its duty of care towards the decedent. This failure, the Plaintiff contends, directly resulted in the fatal accident. To establish this claim, we will demonstrate that the Defendant had a legal obligation to ensure the safety of individuals at the crossing, which includes the implementation of effective warning systems. We will present evidence to show that the warning system in place was insufficient to prevent accidents, even if it met the minimum federal and local standards. Expert testimony will be used to illustrate that additional or more effective safety measures could and should have been implemented at the crossing. We will also provide evidence of similar accidents at the same or similar crossings, if available, to underscore the Defendant's knowledge of the potential risks and its failure to take appropriate action. The causal link between the Defendant's failure and the decedent's death will be established through eyewitness accounts, accident reconstruction, and possibly video footage, if available.

Count LI: Failure to Comply with Federal Railroad Administration Regulations

This count alleges that the defendant, the train company, failed to comply with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations, which mandate specific safety measures, including adequate warning systems to prevent accidents. The parents contend that the train company's warning system was insufficient, thereby violating FRA regulations and contributing to their son's tragic accident. To prove this, we will first establish the existence of a duty by the train company to comply with FRA regulations. We will present the specific FRA regulations that apply to warning systems and demonstrate that the train company's system did not meet these standards. We will use expert testimony from a railroad safety expert to substantiate this claim. We will also show that this failure directly resulted in the boy's death, linking the inadequate warning system to the accident. This will be supported by accident reconstruction experts, eyewitness testimony, and possibly video footage of the incident. Finally, we will demonstrate that the parents have suffered damages as a result of their son's death, which can be proven through medical records, funeral expenses, and testimony regarding their emotional distress.

Count LII: Failure to Comply with Florida Statutes Regarding Railroad Safety

This count alleges that the defendant, the train company, failed to comply with the safety standards set forth by Florida Statutes regarding railroad safety, thereby causing the tragic death of the 10-year-old boy. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's warning system was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the Florida Statutes, which mandate specific safety measures to prevent such accidents. To prove this, we will present evidence showing the inadequacy of the warning system in place at the time of the accident. This will include expert testimony on the standards set by the Florida Statutes and how the defendant's system fell short. We will also present evidence of similar accidents at the same location, if any, to demonstrate a pattern of negligence. Additionally, we will show that the boy's death was a direct result of this failure to comply with the state's safety standards. This will involve medical and accident reconstruction expert testimony to establish causation between the inadequate warning system and the fatal accident.

Count LIII: Failure to Comply with Florida Statutes Regarding Premises Liability

This count alleges that the train company failed to comply with Florida's premises liability laws, which require property owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition and warn of any known dangers. The parents contend that the train company did not adequately warn of the dangers associated with the train tracks, thereby breaching its duty of care. To prove this, we will present evidence showing that the warning system in place was insufficient to alert a 10-year-old child of the imminent danger. We will bring in expert witnesses to testify that the warning system was not up to the standard expected of a reasonable train company. We will also present comparative evidence from other train companies that have more effective warning systems in place. Furthermore, we will argue that the train company was aware of the potential danger, as trains inherently pose a risk to individuals who may wander onto the tracks, yet failed to take adequate measures to prevent such a tragedy. This, we will argue, constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the train company to the public, including the deceased child.

Count LIV: Failure to Comply with Florida Statutes Regarding Damages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the train company, failed to comply with Florida Statutes regarding damages, specifically those related to the duty of care and safety measures required for operating a train. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's warning system was inadequate, thereby breaching the standard of care expected of a reasonable train operator under similar circumstances. This breach, the Plaintiff contends, directly resulted in the tragic death of their 10-year-old son. To prove this count, we will present evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of the warning system, including expert testimony on the standards of care in the train industry and the effectiveness of different warning systems. We will also provide evidence of the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs, including the loss of their son and the emotional distress they have endured as a result. We will argue that the Defendant's failure to comply with the relevant Florida Statutes regarding damages constitutes negligence, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs.

Count LV: Failure to Comply with Florida Statutes Regarding Sovereign Immunity in Tort Actions.

The Defendant, the train company, is alleged to have failed to comply with Florida Statutes regarding sovereign immunity in tort actions, specifically Section 768.28 of the Florida Statutes. This statute waives sovereign immunity for entities performing governmental functions to the extent of their insurance coverage. The parents allege that the train company, as a common carrier, is performing a governmental function and thus, is subject to this statute. The parents further allege that the train company failed to maintain a safe environment for the public, including their deceased son, by not having an adequate warning system to prevent people from going onto the train tracks. To prove this count, we will present evidence showing that the train company is indeed performing a governmental function and is therefore subject to Section 768.28. We will also present evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the warning system in place was inadequate and did not meet the standard of care required of entities performing governmental functions. Furthermore, we will demonstrate that the train company has insurance coverage, thus waiving their sovereign immunity to the extent of that coverage.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages, costs, interest, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City/State, Zip Code]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[State Name] Bar No: [Your Bar Number]

Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this _____ day of ___________, 20_____, to all parties on the attached service list.

__________________________
[Your Name]
[State Name] Bar No: [Your Bar Number]