## Facts

- Michael and Carole Merhige’s 35-year-old son, Paul, had a long history of violent and irrational behavior, including prior incidents involving law enforcement.
- Paul was an emancipated adult; although he did not live with his parents at the time, they allegedly provided him housing and financial support.
- A Thanksgiving dinner on November 26, 2009, was hosted at Muriel and Jimmy Sitton’s home with multiple family members present.
- Paul did not normally attend the gathering, and family members had previously expressed that he should not be brought to the event.
- Michael and Carole allegedly invited Paul to the 2009 dinner and did not tell the hosts or other guests that Paul would attend.
- During the gathering, Paul retrieved a firearm from his vehicle and shot family members, killing four and seriously wounding another.
- The victims’ estates sued Michael and Carole for negligence, alleging they should not have invited Paul and should have warned or protected the family from foreseeable harm.
- The trial court dismissed the complaints for failure to state a cause of action, concluding the parents owed no legal duty under Florida law.

## Issues

1. Whether parents owe a legal duty to protect adult family members from the criminal acts of their emancipated adult child based on the child’s known violent history and the parents’ decision to bring or invite the child to a family gathering.
2. Whether allegations of foreseeability and parental financial support create a “special relationship” or control sufficient to impose a duty to warn, protect, or restrain the adult child.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissals.
- The court held the parents owed no legal duty to the adult family members on these facts, so an essential element of negligence was missing.
- The court concluded no recognized special relationship existed that imposed a duty to control Paul or to protect others from his criminal acts.
- The court rejected the argument that foreseeability alone could create a duty where Florida law otherwise recognizes none.
- The court declined to extend host or premises-type liability principles to impose a duty on family members who were guests at another person’s home.
- Public policy supported refusing to impose a broad duty on families to prevent or warn against criminal acts by an adult relative.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence requires a legal duty; without duty, a complaint fails as a matter of law.
- Florida generally imposes no duty to control the conduct of a third person or to protect another from third-party criminal acts absent a recognized special relationship with the tortfeasor or the victim.
- Parents generally have no duty to control or supervise an emancipated adult child absent a legally recognized custodial or supervisory relationship conferring control.
- Foreseeability may inform proximate cause or the scope of an existing duty, but it does not itself create a new duty.
- Courts may consider public policy in declining to recognize novel duties that would expand tort liability beyond established categories.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because, despite alleged foreseeability and parental support, Florida law did not recognize a special relationship or control creating a duty for parents to warn or protect adult relatives from the criminal acts of an emancipated adult child at a family gathering.


Knight v. Merhige, 133 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2014)