Dillard, Presiding Judge. Dreyson Stadterman appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Southwood Realty Company and Walden by Triangle Real Estate, LLC in his premises-liability action against them arising from an incident in which he was shot in the parking lot of an apartment complex they own and manage. Specifically, Stadterman argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because the shooting was foreseeable to them and there are ample jury questions regarding the breach and proximate-cause elements of his negligence claim. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.[1] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Stadterman (i.e., the nonmoving party),[2] the record shows that Walden owns a 240-unit apartment complex in Hampton, Georgia, called the Walden Landing Apartments. Walden was formed for the sole purpose of taking ownership of the property, and Southwood manages its day-to-day operations. In July 2017, Stadterman—who is originally from South Carolina—moved to the property and signed a six-month lease for an apartment in the 700 Building.[3] But approximately four months later, Stadterman was unhappy with his work and living situation, so he decided to return to South Carolina. To that end, on the night of October 4, 2017, Stadterman loaded his car with the things he planned to take with him. And on his second trip from the apartment to his car, Stadterman was carrying a plastic bag full of dishes when it accidentally hit a white car, setting off its alarm. Stadterman finished loading his car while the white car’s alarm blared, and when he turned to go back inside his apartment, a man in a dark hoodie—who he had never seen before—emerged from one of the other apartments. The man approached Stadterman and began yelling at him, accusing him of “messing with his car . . . [and] his stuff.” Stadterman denied doing any such thing, explained that he was merely loading his car, and then placed his hands up to deescalate the situation. Nevertheless, the man—who was never identified—walked closer to Stadterman and lifted up his hoodie to reveal a gun. Then, after attempting to make small talk about the gun, Stadterman turned to walk away, and the man shot him in the back. And despite severe bleeding, Stadterman survived the shooting. Thereafter, on November 24, 2018, Stadterman filed a negligence action against the defendants, contending that their inadequate security measures were the proximate cause of his injuries. The defendants filed a joint answer, denying most of the allegations in the complaint and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Discovery ensued, and the defendants eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted after a hearing on the matter. This appeal follows. Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”[4] Furthermore, a de novo standard of review “applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”[5] Moreover, at the summary-judgment stage, we do not “resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jury for resolution.”[6] With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Stadterman’s specific claims of error. 1. Addressing Stadterman’s second argument first, he contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because there was ample evidence to create jury questions regarding the duty and causation elements of his negligence claim. We disagree. The essential elements of a negligence claim are “the existence of a legal duty; breach of that duty; a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; and damages.”[7] As to causation, our Supreme Court has explained that “[c]ausation is an essential element of . . . negligence claims[,] [and] [t]o establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must show a legally attributable causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the alleged injury.”[8] So, no matter how negligent a party may be, if “his act stands in no causal relation to the injury, it is not actionable.”[9] Indeed, the plaintiff must introduce evidence “which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result.”[10] Significantly, a mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter “remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to grant summary judgment for the defendant.”[11] Lastly, it is a well-settled principle of negligence law that “the occurrence of an unfortunate event is not sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence.”[12] Here, Stadterman essentially asserts that the defendants’ failure to provide adequate security on the property was the proximate cause of his injuries. Specifically, he claims that the shooting would likely have been prevented if the defendants had employed a competent courtesy officer and provided “functional controls on access to the property.” And as to access to the property, Stadterman contends that there was evidence the gate at the entrance was perpetually broken. But even if that were true, there is no evidence the unidentified shooter was able to enter the property because of a broken gate. Indeed, in his own statement of facts before the trial court, Stadterman acknowledged that the defendants had no idea if the gate was working at the time of the shooting and there was no way of finding out. He also stated that the defendants were unaware of how the shooter gained access to the property. Presumably, this is at least partially because the shooter was never identified. In any event, even if the gate were broken that day, it is undisputed that when the shooter’s car alarm went off, he emerged from an apartment, which strongly suggests he was there visiting a tenant who granted him access to the property. At best, even viewing the evidence in Stadterman’s favor, whether a broken gate played any role in causing his shooting is purely speculative and insufficient to establish causation.[13] Additionally, Stadterman claims that his shooting would likely have been prevented if the defendants had employed a competent courtesy officer to deter crime on the property.[14] But even if a competent courtesy officer were employed and living in the apartment complex at the relevant time, there is no evidence that his or her duties would have included patrolling the parking lot of the 700 building at any particular time, much less at the precise time of the shooting. Moreover, several witnesses testified that one of the main reasons to hire a courtesy officer is simply to have a marked patrol car in the parking lot. And even if the courtesy officer happened to be home at the time of the shooting and the presence of a police car might possibly have made the shooting less likely, there is no evidence suggesting that the patrol car’s absence made the sudden, violent attack more likely than not.[15] Further, Russell Tindall—a corporate representative for the defendants—testified that, even if Miller had been on the property at the relevant time, he would only have a responsibility to calm the altercation between the shooter and Stadterman if it were observed or reported. Here, there is no evidence that a competent courtesy officer was likely to observe the instant altercation, and even if he or she was, it is unclear how the officer would have been able to prevent such a sudden shooting. Simply put, Stadterman has not identified any additional security measure the defendants could have taken that was likely to have prevented his shooting. Suffice it to say, Stadterman has failed to establish that any inadequate security measures at the property were the cause of his injuries.[16] 2. Stadterman also argues the trial court erred in finding that the shooting was unforeseeable to the defendants. But given our holding in Division 1 supra, he has failed to establish the required element of proximate cause, and we need not address this additional argument.[17] For all these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. Judgment affirmed. Mercier and Pinson, JJ., concur.
