LARRY T GOODMAN V 1012 INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LARRY T. GOODMAN, Personal Representative
of the Estate of AKIL JELANI GOODMAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 296348
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 08-089183-NO
1012, INC., d/b/a THE BEACH HOUSE,
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee,
and
CHANTANTUS FRANKLIN,
Defendant/Cross-Defendant.
DAVID WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 296349
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 08-088646-NO
1012, INC., d/b/a THE BEACH HOUSE,
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee,
and
CHANTANTUS FRANKLIN,
Defendant/Cross-Defendant.
Before: SERVITTO, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and OWENS, JJ.
Servitto, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-1-
Because I believe the there was, at a minimum, a question of fact as to whether defendant
was negligent for not contacting the police after becoming aware that Franklin had threatened to
obtain a gun shortly before the shooting, I respectfully dissent.
The evidence in this case indicated that Franklin was present while his friend, Williams,
was engaged in an argument with Goodman inside the club. As a result of the argument,
Franklin, Williams, Goodman, and another individual, Dionco Whiteside, were escorted out of
the club. Plaintiff presented evidence that Franklin, while being escorted outside the club,
threatened to “pop” or shoot somebody. While it is true that Franklin did not threaten anyone by
name, the timing of the threat and the circumstances surrounding the threat suggests a question
of fact concerning whether there was a risk of imminent and foreseeable harm to an identifiable
invitee. Because Franklin made the alleged threat while being escorted outside by one of
defendant’s bouncers, one could determine that the threat was directed toward those whom
Franklin felt were responsible for his expulsion. Based on the evidence, one could deduce that
this alleged threat was directed at Goodman and/or defendant’s bouncer(s). Goodman, in fact,
was a victim of the shooting. I would thus conclude that a question of fact existed as to whether
there was a risk of imminent and foreseeable harm to an identifiable invitee thereby giving rise to
a duty on defendant’s part to act. I would find that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’
negligence claims. I agree with the majority’s conclusions in all other respects.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
