"[W]hen a jury does not reach an issue in returning a verdict, alleged improprieties relating to that issue are harmless." Id. ; see also Kalams v. Giacchetto , supra, 268 Conn. at 246, 250, 842 A.2d 1100 (holding that any error in precluding testimony on causation in medical malpractice action was harmless because jury found no breach of standard of care and did not reach causation); Phaneuf v. Berselli , 119 Conn. App. 330, 335–36, 988 A.2d 344 (2010) (holding that instructional error regarding causation was harmless because jury found for defendant on liability and did not reach causation). We conclude that we need not consider the merits of the plaintiff's arguments as to the trial court's rulings with respect to the syrinx evidence because, even if we assume that the rulings were improper, they were harmless.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Phaneuf v. Berselli, 119 Conn.App. 330, 336, 988 A.2d 344 (2010). " A duty, in negligence cases, may be defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another."
In order to prevail on a negligence claim in connection with a contract, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, violation of that duty, causation and damages. Centimark Corp. v. Vill. Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership, 113 Conn.App. 509 (2009); Phaneuf v. Berselli, 119 Conn.App. 330, 336, 988 A.2d 344 (2010). Because Cowan was not a party to the contract-Gallery, not Cowan-had a duty towards to the plaintiff.