JERRETT WILLIAMS GRAHAM, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RAJAH MALIK GRAHAM v. ORLANDO LODGE NO. 1079, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A ORLANDO FLORIDA ELKS LODGE 1079, and TAJH WILLIAMS, Individually
── JERRETT WILLIAMS GRAHAM, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RAJAH MALIK GRAHAM v. ORLANDO LODGE NO. 1079, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A ORLANDO FLORIDA ELKS LODGE 1079, and TAJH WILLIAMS, Individually ──
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date: April 24, 2026
Category: General
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-2136
Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-008381-O
_____________________________
JERRETT WILLIAMS GRAHAM, individually and as Personal Representative of the
ESTATE OF RAJAH MALIK GRAHAM,
Appellant,
v.
ORLANDO LODGE NO. 1079, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a ORLANDO FLORIDA ELKS LODGE #1079,
and TAJH WILLIAMS,
Appellees.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Patricia L. Strowbridge, Judge.
April 24, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (“The court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). See generally McCain
v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“[F]oreseeability relates to
duty and proximate causation in different ways and to different ends. The duty
element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably
created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others. The
proximate causation element, on the other hand, is concerned with whether and to
what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the
specific injury that actually occurred.” (citations omitted)); Fritsch v. Rocky Bayou
Country Club, Inc., 799 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Under Florida law,
to state a cause of action for negligence in a wrongful death action, Appellant is
required to allege 1) that Appellee owed a legal duty to the decedent; 2) that Appellee
breached that duty; 3) that the breach was a legal or proximate cause of the
decedent’s death; and 4) that Appellant suffered damages as a result of the breach.”
(citations omitted)).
TRAVER, C.J., concurs.
NARDELLA, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
PRATT, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
_____________________________________
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
______________________________________
NARDELLA, J., concurring and concurring specially.
As the Supreme Court of Michigan recognized in MacDonald v. PKT, Inc.,
628 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Mich. 2001), criminal activity is by nature irrational and
unpredictable. To say a particular criminal act is “foreseeable” is often just a
description of the inevitable risk present almost everywhere, a risk that even
2
police—trained and equipped to anticipate—are unable to universally mitigate. Id.
In this appeal, Appellant urges that the tall task of crime prevention be passed on to
the landlord, accompanied by culpability for the ultimate failure to prevent the harm
that visited the invitee.
While this case did not present a close call, in future cases our Court will need
to articulate a rule of law for when an act of criminal violence is reasonably
foreseeable and thus a duty owed. In striking that balance, I am mindful that if duty
is allowed to grow beyond reasonable responsibility, then business owners will
essentially be held vicariously liable for criminal actors they cannot control. See
generally Reichenbach v. Days Inn of Am., Inc., 401 So. 2d 1366, 1368–69 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., concurring specially) (“No reasonable standard of care
should require one to be ever on guard, ever present, ready and able, to prevent an
unforeseeable pers
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}