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

Headline: Elks Lodge owes duty of care in overdose death case

Citation:

Court: Florida District Court of Appeal · Filed: 2026-04-24 · Docket: 6D2024-2136

Published

This decision clarifies that organizations hosting events, even those involving potentially risky activities like parties with alcohol and drugs, owe a duty of care to their invitees. It emphasizes that foreseeability of harm and proximate cause are often questions of fact for a jury, making it harder for defendants to secure early dismissals in wrongful death cases involving negligence. moderate reversed

Outcome: Mixed Outcome

Impact Score: 65/100 — Moderate impact: This case has notable implications for related legal matters.

Legal Topics: Premises liability Duty of care for social hosts Foreseeability of harm Proximate cause in negligence actions Wrongful death claims Summary judgment standards

Legal Principles: Duty of reasonable careForeseeability as an element of duty and proximate causeProximate cause (cause-in-fact and legal cause)Summary judgment (Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure)

Brief at a Glance

An Elks Lodge can be held responsible for a guest's overdose death if their negligence in failing to ensure safety or seek help contributed to the fatality.

Social lodges and clubs owe a duty of care to their invitees, extending to protecting them from foreseeable harm.
Failure to intervene or seek aid in a foreseeable emergency can be considered a breach of duty, even if the lodge didn't directly cause the harm.
Proximate cause can be established if the lodge's inaction was a substantial factor in the resulting death.

Case Summary

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, decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on April 24, 2026, resulted in a mixed outcome. The plaintiff, Jerrett Williams Graham, sued the Orlando Elks Lodge and Tajh Williams for negligence and wrongful death after his son, Rajah Malik Graham, died from an overdose at a party hosted by the Lodge. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to Rajah, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the Lodge's actions or inactions were a proximate cause of Rajah's death. The court held: The Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to its invitees, including Rajah Malik Graham, to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its premises and to protect them from foreseeable harm, even if the harm was caused by a third party.. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Elks Lodge breached its duty of care by failing to adequately supervise the party, failing to intervene when it became aware of Rajah's distress, or failing to call for medical assistance promptly.. The court found that Rajah's death from an overdose was a foreseeable consequence of the party's circumstances, which could include the presence of drugs and alcohol, and the potential for overdose.. The court determined that a jury could reasonably conclude that the Elks Lodge's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Rajah's death, as the delay in seeking medical attention or the failure to intervene could have contributed to the fatal outcome.. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that required a trial to resolve.. This decision clarifies that organizations hosting events, even those involving potentially risky activities like parties with alcohol and drugs, owe a duty of care to their invitees. It emphasizes that foreseeability of harm and proximate cause are often questions of fact for a jury, making it harder for defendants to secure early dismissals in wrongful death cases involving negligence.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you're at a party at a club, and someone gets hurt or worse because the club didn't take reasonable steps to keep people safe. This ruling says that the club might be responsible, even if they didn't directly cause the harm. It means places that host events have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their guests, and if they fail, they could be held liable for damages.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court reversed summary judgment, finding that the Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to invitees, even in the context of potential drug use at a private party. The key is the court's determination that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding proximate cause, specifically whether the Lodge's alleged negligence in failing to intervene or seek aid was a substantial factor in the decedent's death. This opens the door for plaintiffs to pursue negligence claims against social clubs and similar venues where harm occurs on their premises, requiring careful factual development regarding foreseeability and causation.

For Law Students

This case tests the scope of premises liability and duty of care, particularly concerning third-party conduct (drug use) on a defendant's property. The court found that a social lodge could owe a duty to protect an invitee from harm, even if the harm was caused by an intervening act like an overdose. The exam issue is whether the defendant's failure to act (e.g., call for help) constitutes a breach of duty and proximate cause of death, moving beyond a simple 'no duty' defense for premises owners.

Newsroom Summary

A Florida appeals court has revived a wrongful death lawsuit against the Orlando Elks Lodge, ruling the organization may be liable for a young man's overdose death at a party. The decision means social clubs and similar venues could face greater scrutiny and potential lawsuits if guests are harmed on their property.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

The Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to its invitees, including Rajah Malik Graham, to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its premises and to protect them from foreseeable harm, even if the harm was caused by a third party.
Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Elks Lodge breached its duty of care by failing to adequately supervise the party, failing to intervene when it became aware of Rajah's distress, or failing to call for medical assistance promptly.
The court found that Rajah's death from an overdose was a foreseeable consequence of the party's circumstances, which could include the presence of drugs and alcohol, and the potential for overdose.
The court determined that a jury could reasonably conclude that the Elks Lodge's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Rajah's death, as the delay in seeking medical attention or the failure to intervene could have contributed to the fatal outcome.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that required a trial to resolve.

Key Takeaways

Social lodges and clubs owe a duty of care to their invitees, extending to protecting them from foreseeable harm.
Failure to intervene or seek aid in a foreseeable emergency can be considered a breach of duty, even if the lodge didn't directly cause the harm.
Proximate cause can be established if the lodge's inaction was a substantial factor in the resulting death.
Summary judgment should be reversed if genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the lodge's duty, breach, and causation.
Venues hosting events must be prepared to respond reasonably to emergencies occurring on their premises.

Deep Legal Analysis

Standard of Review

The standard of review is de novo. This means the appellate court reviews the legal issues anew, without deference to the trial court's decision. It applies here because the appeal concerns the interpretation of a contract, which is a question of law.

Procedural Posture

This case reached the appellate court on appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida. The plaintiff, Jerrett Williams Graham, sued the Orlando Lodge No. 1079, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America, Inc. (the Elks Lodge), and Tajh Williams, alleging negligence and wrongful death after the death of his son, Rajah Malik Graham. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Elks Lodge, finding that the Elks Lodge owed no duty of care to the decedent. The plaintiff appealed this decision.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the elements of negligence, including duty, breach, causation, and damages. In the context of a motion for summary judgment, the defendant (Elks Lodge) bears the burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.

Legal Tests Applied

Negligence

Elements: Duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff · Breach of that duty · Causation (actual and proximate) · Damages suffered by the plaintiff

The court focused on the 'duty of care' element. The plaintiff argued the Elks Lodge had a duty to protect his son from foreseeable harm, while the Elks Lodge contended it had no such duty as the decedent was not an invitee on its premises. The court analyzed whether the Elks Lodge's actions or inactions created a foreseeable zone of risk that encompassed the decedent's death.

Foreseeability

Elements: Whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable · Whether the defendant's actions created a foreseeable zone of risk

The court examined whether the specific type of harm that occurred was reasonably foreseeable to the Elks Lodge. This involved assessing whether the circumstances surrounding the incident made it probable that such a death could occur on or in connection with the Elks Lodge's property or activities.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to the decedent under Florida law.The scope of premises liability and the duty owed to individuals on or near a property.

Key Legal Definitions

Foreseeability: The court defined foreseeability in the context of negligence as whether the defendant should have reasonably anticipated the general type of harm that occurred. It is a key element in establishing both duty and proximate cause.

Duty of Care: The court explained that a duty of care arises from a relationship between the parties or from the defendant's affirmative actions that create a foreseeable zone of risk. The absence of a duty means there can be no negligence.

Summary Judgment: The court applied the standard for summary judgment, which is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Rule Statements

"A defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff if the defendant's conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk that poses a general threat of harm to others."

"Foreseeability, in the context of negligence, does not require the defendant to anticipate the exact manner in which the injury will occur, but rather the general nature of the harm."

"A landowner generally owes no duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third persons unless the landowner knows or has reason to know that such acts are occurring or are reasonably likely to occur."

Entities and Participants

Key Takeaways

Social lodges and clubs owe a duty of care to their invitees, extending to protecting them from foreseeable harm.
Failure to intervene or seek aid in a foreseeable emergency can be considered a breach of duty, even if the lodge didn't directly cause the harm.
Proximate cause can be established if the lodge's inaction was a substantial factor in the resulting death.
Summary judgment should be reversed if genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the lodge's duty, breach, and causation.
Venues hosting events must be prepared to respond reasonably to emergencies occurring on their premises.

Know Your Rights

Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:

Scenario: You attend a party at a private club or social lodge, and another guest suffers a medical emergency, like an overdose, and tragically passes away. You believe the club's staff or management knew about the situation or could have reasonably intervened to get help but failed to do so.

Your Rights: You may have the right to sue the club for wrongful death if you can prove that the club owed a duty of care to the deceased, breached that duty by failing to act reasonably (e.g., not calling emergency services), and that this failure was a direct cause of the death.

What To Do: If you are a family member of the deceased, consult with a personal injury or wrongful death attorney immediately. Gather any evidence you have, such as witness contact information, photos, or communications related to the incident and the club's response.

Is It Legal?

Common legal questions answered by this ruling:

Is it legal for a social club or lodge to be held responsible if someone dies from an overdose at an event they hosted?

It depends. Under this ruling, a social club or lodge *can* be held legally responsible if their negligence in failing to take reasonable steps to ensure safety or seek help contributed to the death. It's not automatic; a court would need to find that the club had a duty of care, breached it, and that the breach was a cause of the death.

This ruling is from a Florida appellate court and sets precedent within Florida. Other states may have different laws regarding premises liability and duty of care for social venues.

Practical Implications

For Social Clubs and Lodges (e.g., Elks Lodges, VFW Halls, private clubs)

These organizations must reassess their safety protocols and emergency response plans for events. They may face increased liability if they fail to adequately supervise events or respond to emergencies, potentially leading to costly lawsuits and reputational damage.

For Attorneys specializing in personal injury and wrongful death

This ruling provides a stronger basis for pursuing claims against venues that host events where harm occurs, even if the direct cause is third-party conduct. Attorneys should focus on developing evidence of the venue's knowledge, control, and failure to act reasonably in emergency situations.

Related Legal Concepts

Premises Liability
The legal responsibility of a property owner or occupier to ensure that visitors... Duty of Care
A legal obligation requiring individuals and entities to act with the level of c... Wrongful Death
A lawsuit brought by the estate or beneficiaries of a deceased person who died a... Proximate Cause
The legal cause of an injury or harm; the event that directly leads to the outco... Summary Judgment
A decision made by a court where a party is granted judgment without a full tria...

Frequently Asked Questions (16)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (16)

Q: What is 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 about?

Q: What court decided 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?

Q: When was 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 decided?

Q: What was the docket number in 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?

The docket number for 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 is 6D2024-2136. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: What is the citation for 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?

The citation for 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 is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: Is 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 published?

Q: What was the ruling in 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?

The court issued a mixed ruling in 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. Key holdings: The Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to its invitees, including Rajah Malik Graham, to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its premises and to protect them from foreseeable harm, even if the harm was caused by a third party.; Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Elks Lodge breached its duty of care by failing to adequately supervise the party, failing to intervene when it became aware of Rajah's distress, or failing to call for medical assistance promptly.; The court found that Rajah's death from an overdose was a foreseeable consequence of the party's circumstances, which could include the presence of drugs and alcohol, and the potential for overdose.; The court determined that a jury could reasonably conclude that the Elks Lodge's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Rajah's death, as the delay in seeking medical attention or the failure to intervene could have contributed to the fatal outcome.; The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that required a trial to resolve..

Q: Why is 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 important?

Q: What precedent does 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 set?

Q: What are the key holdings in 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?

1. The Elks Lodge owed a duty of care to its invitees, including Rajah Malik Graham, to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its premises and to protect them from foreseeable harm, even if the harm was caused by a third party. 2. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Elks Lodge breached its duty of care by failing to adequately supervise the party, failing to intervene when it became aware of Rajah's distress, or failing to call for medical assistance promptly. 3. The court found that Rajah's death from an overdose was a foreseeable consequence of the party's circumstances, which could include the presence of drugs and alcohol, and the potential for overdose. 4. The court determined that a jury could reasonably conclude that the Elks Lodge's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Rajah's death, as the delay in seeking medical attention or the failure to intervene could have contributed to the fatal outcome. 5. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that required a trial to resolve.

Q: How does 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 affect me?

Q: Can 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 be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What cases are related to 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?

Precedent cases cited or related to 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: Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928); McCain Foods, Inc. v. Gentry, 717 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Q: What specific actions or inactions by the Elks Lodge could a jury find negligent?

A jury could find negligence if the Lodge failed to adequately supervise the party, did not intervene when Rajah appeared distressed or incapacitated, or delayed in calling for emergency medical services. The presence of drugs and alcohol at a supervised event also raises questions about the Lodge's responsibility.

Q: How does the court define 'foreseeable harm' in this context?

The court considers harm foreseeable if it is a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions or inactions. In this case, the risk of drug use and overdose at a party where such substances might be present was deemed a foreseeable risk that the Lodge should have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.

Q: What is the significance of the 'genuine issue of material fact' standard in this ruling?

This standard means that there is enough conflicting evidence or uncertainty about key facts that a jury, not a judge, must decide the case. The appellate court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, preventing the case from being dismissed at the summary judgment stage.

Cited Precedents

This opinion references the following precedent cases:

Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
McCain Foods, Inc. v. Gentry, 717 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)

Case Details

Case Name	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
Citation
Court	Florida District Court of Appeal
Date Filed	2026-04-24
Docket Number	6D2024-2136
Precedential Status	Published
Outcome	Mixed Outcome
Disposition	reversed
Impact Score	65 / 100
Significance	This decision clarifies that organizations hosting events, even those involving potentially risky activities like parties with alcohol and drugs, owe a duty of care to their invitees. It emphasizes that foreseeability of harm and proximate cause are often questions of fact for a jury, making it harder for defendants to secure early dismissals in wrongful death cases involving negligence.
Complexity	moderate
Legal Topics	Premises liability, Duty of care for social hosts, Foreseeability of harm, Proximate cause in negligence actions, Wrongful death claims, Summary judgment standards
Jurisdiction	fl

Related Legal Resources

Florida District Court of Appeal Opinions Premises liability Duty of care for social hosts Foreseeability of harm Proximate cause in negligence actions Wrongful death claims Summary judgment standards fl Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Premises liability Know Your Rights: Duty of care for social hosts Know Your Rights: Foreseeability of harm Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Premises liability Guide Duty of care for social hosts Guide Duty of reasonable care (Legal Term)Foreseeability as an element of duty and proximate cause (Legal Term)Proximate cause (cause-in-fact and legal cause) (Legal Term)Summary judgment (Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) (Legal Term) Premises liability Topic Hub Duty of care for social hosts Topic Hub Foreseeability of harm Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of 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 was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on Premises liability or from the Florida District Court of Appeal:

Mikesha Chantae Johnson v. Department of Revenue and Jevaun Shimoi Harvey
Homestead Exemption Allowed for Co-Owned Property Despite Co-Owner's Intent

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Paris Demetrius Evans v. State of Florida, Orange County Sheriff's Office, and Clerk of the Court for Orange County
Appellate court affirms denial of motion to correct illegal sentence without hearing

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Raul A. Campoverde v. State of Florida
Anonymous tip insufficient for traffic stop, evidence suppressed

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Carliovis Bandera-Valier v. State of Florida
Prior Bad Acts Evidence Admissible Under Modus Operandi Exception

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Damerius Kashon Hart v. State of Florida
Traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion, evidence suppressed

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Patrick Maxwell v. State of Florida
Florida appeals court: Nervousness and marijuana smell insufficient for probable cause

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Quintavis Jaquan Wilson v. State of Florida
Affirmed: Reasonable suspicion justified traffic stop, leading to drug conviction.

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24
Martinez v. State of Florida
State Sovereign Immunity Shields Florida from Road Maintenance Negligence Claim

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-24