All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion Apr 26, 2026

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
CourtListener · Apr 24, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# 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. #}