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.

Legal Research For Plaintiff

1. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine (1965): This doctrine holds that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is applicable when the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.

2. Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. 657 (1873): This case established the principle that a railroad company can be held liable for injuries to children caused by its failure to fence its tracks or provide other warnings, even if the child was trespassing on the railroad's property.

3. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonald, 152 U.S. 262 (1894): This case further clarified the liability of railroad companies for injuries to trespassers, holding that a company could be held liable if it was negligent in failing to prevent foreseeable harm.

4. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927): This case established the "stop, look, and listen" rule, which requires a motorist approaching a railroad crossing to stop, look for oncoming trains, and listen for any warning signals before proceeding.

5. Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co., 292 U.S. 98 (1934): This case overturned the "stop, look, and listen" rule, holding that the duty of a motorist approaching a railroad crossing is to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances.

6. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D: Negligence Per Se (1965): This section of the Restatement provides that an act or omission in violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation is considered negligent in itself, without the need to prove that the act or omission was unreasonable.

7. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7 (2010): This section provides that an actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm.

8. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 14 (2010): This section provides that an actor is subject to liability for physical harm caused to another if the actor's conduct is a factual cause of the harm.

9. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 15 (2010): This section provides that an actor's conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct.

10. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 20 (2010): This section provides that an actor's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious.

11. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 27 (2010): This section provides that if multiple acts occur, each of which alone would have been a factual cause of the physical harm at the same time in the absence of the other act(s), each act is regarded as a factual cause of the harm.

12. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 29 (2010): This section provides that an actor is not liable for harm different from the harms whose risks made the actor's conduct tortious.

13. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 34 (2010): This section provides that when an actor's negligent conduct constitutes a legal cause of harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent the actor from being liable.

14. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 37 (2010): This section provides that an actor whose negligence is a factual cause of physical harm is subject to liability for any increased harm resulting from the efforts of third persons to render aid reasonably required by the other's injury.

15. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 39 (2010): This section provides that an actor whose negligent conduct causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

16. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 41 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

17. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 42 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

18. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 43 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

19. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 44 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

20. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 46 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

21. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 47 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

22. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 48 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

23. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 49 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

24. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 50 (2010): This section provides that an actor who negligently causes harm to another is subject to liability for any additional harm resulting from the other's efforts to protect the other or a third person, or to protect property, in the face of an imminent danger that was created by the actor's conduct.

25. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Dixon, 189 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1951): This case held that a railroad company has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, and that this duty extends to children who may be attracted to the property.

26. Hines v. Garrett, 131 Va. 125, 108 S.E. 690 (1921): This case held that a railroad company can be held liable for injuries to a child who was attracted to its property by the presence of a turntable, even though the child was trespassing.

27. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343: Dangerous Conditions Known to or Discoverable by Possessor (1965): This section provides that a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees.

28. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A: Known or Obvious Dangers (1965): This section provides that a possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.

29. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344: Duty of Those in Control of Premises to Third Persons (1965): This section provides that a possessor of land who holds it open to the public is subject to liability for physical harm caused to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, if the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to discover that such acts are being done, or are likely to be done, or to give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm.

30. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390: Chattel for Use by Person Known to be Incompetent (1965): This section provides that one who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

31. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A: Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer (1965): This section provides that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, or to his property, is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.

32. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414: Duty of Those in Control of Activities to Others (1965): This section provides that one who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.

33. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427: Duty to Prevent Harm from Dangerous Activities (1965): This section provides that one who employs an independent contractor to do work involving a special danger to others which the employer knows or has reason to know to be inherent in or normal to the work, or which he contemplates or has reason to contemplate when making the contract, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the contractor's failure to take reasonable precautions against such danger.

34. Federal Railroad Administration, 49 CFR § 222 - Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (2005): This regulation requires that locomotive horns be sounded at all public highway-rail grade crossings, with certain exceptions, to provide a warning to motorists and pedestrians.

35. Federal Railroad Administration, 49 CFR § 234 - Grade Crossing Signal System Safety (2004): This regulation sets forth the standards for the installation, operation, maintenance, and inspection of grade crossing signal systems and their components.

36. Florida Statutes § 335.141 - Railroad-highway grade crossings; reduction of hazards (2020): This statute provides for the reduction of hazards at railroad-highway grade crossings, including the installation of warning devices, the construction of grade separations, and the closing or alteration of crossings.

37. Florida Statutes § 768.81 - Comparative fault (2020): This statute provides for the apportionment of damages in negligence cases based on the comparative fault of the parties.

38. Florida Statutes § 768.0755 - Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment (2010): This statute provides that a business establishment has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and that it can be held liable for injuries caused by a transitory foreign substance on its premises if it had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition and should have taken action to remedy it.

39. Florida Statutes § 768.21 - Damages (2020): This statute provides for the types of damages that can be recovered in a wrongful death action, including medical and funeral expenses, loss of support and services, and mental pain and suffering.

40. Florida Statutes § 768.28 - Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification; risk management programs (2020): This statute provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, subject to certain limitations and conditions.