Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-04-17

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

1,244 chars
We afford plenary review to the defendants’ claim that Julie Chen did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. “The issue of whether a duty exists is a question of law . . . *757which is subject to plenary review.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 138, 811 A.2d 687 (2002). “A duty to use care may arise from a contract, from a statute, or from circumstances under which a reasonable person, knowing what he knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result from his act or failure to act. . . . There is no question that a duty of care may arise out of a contract, but when the claim is brought against a defendant who is not a party to the contract, the duty must arise from something other than mere failure to perform properly under the contract.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124, 139-40, 2 A.3d 859 (2010). “The ultimate test of the existence of the duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Allen v. Cox, 285 Conn. 603, 610, 942 A.2d 296 (2008).