Cited by

“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).

(“The task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” (quotation omitted)), aff 'd