Cited by

“In general, a supplier has a duty to warn end users of a dangerous product if it is reasonably foreseeable that an injury could occur in its use.” (quotation omitted), aff’d

“If no 9 duty exists, it is error for the district court to submit [a] negligence claim to the jury.”

This is because, “[w]here a party cannot prove that the duty at issue arose independent of a contract, Minnesota law precludes that party from recovering in negligence based [on] breach of that duty.” (quotation omitted).

“[A] party is not responsible for damages in tort if the duty breached was merely imposed by contract and not imposed by law.” (quotations omitted).

11 On appeal, respondents argue that “[a]ny duty resulting from a contractual relationship is a duty based only on the terms of the contract.”

Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. , ; Rinn v. Minn. State Agr ic.

“Duty is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” (quotation omitted).

Co. v. Butler , d 572 (Minn. 2012).

imposed by contract, and not imposed by law.” (quotations omitted).

Products liability can be based on a theory of negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty.” (quotation omitted) (emphasis added).

Co. v. Butler , d 156, 158 (Minn. App. 1984); (providing that “when a contract provides the only source of duties between the parties, Minnesota law does not permit the breach of those duties to support a cause of action in negligence.” (quotation omitted)).

In general, a claim of common-law negligence requires a party to show “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury .” Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. , -82 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted) ; ( stating elements of negligence claim in dog -bite case).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , (quotation omitted); d 17 541, 549 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d

Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.

(stating that a party is not responsible for tort damages for breach of a contractual duty).

Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Appellate courts “apply de novo review to the district court’s denial of a [r]ule 50 motion.” aff’d

d 572, 581 (Minn. 2012).

“[A] party is not responsible for damages in tort if the duty breached was merely imposed by contract.” (quotations omitted).

(stating that, in a case where sales contract created duty to provide flight lessons, party was precluded from recovering in tort for breach of that duty because “[w]here a party cannot prove that the duty at issue arose independent of a contract, Minnesota law precludes that party from recovering in

(quotation omitted), aff’d

“Duty is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty.” (quotation omitted).

d 541, 557 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d

Co., 304 Minn. 334, 336, ); aff’d (Minn. Jul.

Ivy parties are precluded from recovering on that basis because “negligent breach of contract[ is] a cause of action not recognized in this state.” (); (“[W]hen a contract provides the only source of duties between the parties, Minnesota law does not permit the breach of those duties to support a cause of action in negligence.” (quotation omitted) (citing Lesmeister, d at 102)); Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 440, (197

See, (holding that a plaintiff may not recover in tort when the duty owed was imposed only by contract).