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.

Mock Trial Results: Out of 12 Jurors, 5 voted Liable, 7 voted Not Liable

SUMMARY OF JURORS WHO VOTED LIABLE:
1. The plaintiffs, John and Jane Doe, presented a compelling case backed by numerous legal precedents and regulations, accusing XYZ TRAIN COMPANY of negligence, inadequate warning systems, and violation of state and federal laws, leading to their minor son's death.
2. The plaintiffs cited relevant court cases and federal regulations supporting their claims of negligence, inadequate warning system, causation, and damages.
3. They provided a comprehensive plan to prove the rules of law, including details of the unsafe conditions of the train tracks, expert testimony, a direct link between the conditions and their son's death, and the economic and non-economic damages suffered by them.
4. The defendant, XYZ TRAIN COMPANY, mainly denied the allegations and asserted compliance with laws and regulations, without significant evidence or details to refute the plaintiffs' claims.
5. The defense raised comparative negligence as a potential factor, asserting the child or his parents were partially at fault, but the burden of proof lies with the defendant.
6. The defense also invoked the Adequate Warning Doctrine, Preemption Doctrine, and Assumption of Risk Doctrine, which depend on the specific details and circumstances of the incident and evidence presented in court.
7. The plaintiffs' case appears more compelling and is backed by legal precedents and regulations, leading to a vote of liability, subject to the strength and credibility of the evidence presented during the trial.
8. The plaintiffs' arguments, particularly around negligence, inadequate warning systems, and breach of duty, were compelling, detailing how the train company allegedly failed to provide sufficient warning systems and a safe environment.
9. The defense argued that they complied with federal and state laws, suggesting incident resulted from the minor's and/or parents' negligence, but this was not sufficient to absolve the company from its duty of care, especially when it could have taken additional safety steps.
10. The defendants failed to provide strong evidence to counter the plaintiffs' allegations, relying mainly on legal defenses rather than showing they had taken all necessary precautions to prevent such an incident.
11. The plaintiff's case resonated with me because of my own experiences as a parent and an architect, understanding the importance of designing safe environments for children.
12. The plaintiff's argument that the defendant had a heightened duty of care due to the foreseeable risk of harm to children is very persuasive.
13. The defense's argument of comparative negligence and assumption of risk doesn't hold much weight considering the victim was a minor.
14. Based on the information given, I believe the XYZ TRAIN COMPANY should be held liable for the tragic death of James Doe.

SUMMARY OF JURORS WHO VOTED NOT-LIABLE:
1. The jurors believe that XYZ TRAIN COMPANY complied with all federal and local safety regulations. A juror with a background in construction found evidence suggesting the company adhered to all relevant laws relating to warning systems at railroad crossings.
2. The defense's invocation of the Adequate Warning Doctrine was convincing to the jurors. They argue that the company provided sufficient warning systems as per Federal and local laws, shifting the responsibility to individuals to heed these warnings.
3. The jurors were persuaded by the defense's argument of comparative negligence. They suggested that the child or the parents bear some responsibility for the accident, especially given the evidence that the warning systems were functioning and in accordance with legal standards.
4. The jurors took note of the defense's claim regarding the causality of the accident. The defense argues that the Defendant's conduct was not the actual or proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages.
5. The possibility of the Preemption Doctrine raised by the defense was also noted by the jurors. The defense suggests that Federal law preempts state law in matters of railroad safety, which could potentially override the Plaintiffs' state law claims.
6. The jurors found the defense's arguments about the potential contributory and/or comparative negligence of the plaintiffs (the parents) and/or the decedent (the child) to be key points in the case.
7. The doctrine of assumption of the risk was a crucial component for the jurors. They believe that if the defense can prove that the child or the parents knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of crossing the train tracks despite the warning systems, this could further absolve the train company of liability.
8. Despite the tragic nature of the incident, the jurors concluded that the train company seems to have taken all legally required precautions to prevent such accidents. They also believe that it's important to consider who bears the responsibility to ensure children do not enter dangerous areas like train tracks.