Instead, she raised these arguments distinctly for the first time in her motion to reargue the court's decision, which generally does not preserve an issue for appellate review. Compare White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. , 313 Conn. 610, 634, 99 A.3d 1079 (2014) ("[r]aising an issue for the first time in a motion to reargue will not preserve that issue for appellate review"), with Twin Oaks Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Jones , 132 Conn. App. 8, 15 n.5, 30 A.3d 7 (2011) (plaintiff preserved its challenge to court's award of damages because court set forth damages calculation in memorandum of decision and plaintiff filed motion to reargue), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 901, 43 A.3d 663 (2012). The plaintiff contends, however, that these are not new claims but, rather, are new arguments in support of the sole legal claim she raised in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., 286 Conn. 563, 578, 945 A.2d 388 (2008); Twin Oaks Condo. Ass'n v. Jones, 132 Conn.App. 8, 12 n.3, 30 A.3d 7 (2011), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 901, 43 A.3d 663 (2012). " Duty is a legal conclusion about relationships between individuals, made after the fact, and imperative to a negligence cause of action.

Wayne A. Francis, Hartford, in support of the petition.The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 132 Conn.App. 8, 30 A.3d 7 (2011), is denied.

We review challenges to the finding of causation under the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion of negligence is factual. See Twin Oaks Condominium Assn., Inc . v. Jones , 132 Conn.App. 8, 11, 30 A.3d 7 (2011) ("[t]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact"), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 901, 43 A.3d 663 (2012) ; see also Gurguis v. Frankel , supra, at 168, 888 A.2d 1083 (reviewing challenge to finding of causation under clearly erroneous standard). Because the court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were caused, at least in part, by an exacerbation of a prior condition, a discussion of the eggshell plaintiff doctrine is relevant to our inquiry. "The eggshell plaintiff doctrine states that [w]here a tort is committed, and injury may reasonably be anticipated, the wrongdoer is liable for the proximate results of that injury, although the consequences are more serious than they would have been, had the injured person been in perfect health.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Twin Oaks Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 132 Conn.App. 8, 16, 30 A.3d 7 (2011), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 901, 43 A.3d 663 (2012). In this case, the trial court concluded that the testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearing was sufficient to establish the defendant's damages.

(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Twin Oaks Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 132 Conn.App. 8, 11–12, 30 A.3d 7 (2011). Our Supreme Court has stated that gross negligence is “very great or excessive negligence, or as the want of, or failure to exercise, even slight or scant care or slight diligence.... [T]his court has construed gross negligence to mean no care at all, or the omission of such care which even the most inattentive and thoughtless seldom fail to make their concern, evincing a reckless temperament and lack of care, practically [wilful] in its nature.... Gross negligence means more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence or error of judgment; hence, it requires proof of something more than the lack of ordinary care. It implies an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care, aggravated disregard for the rights and safety of others, or negligence substantially and appreciably greater than ordinary negligence.”

" [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Twin Oaks Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones, 132 Conn.App. 8, 11, 30 A.3d 7 (2011), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 901, 43 A.3d 663 (2012). In its memorandum in support of its motion, the defendant makes several arguments to demonstrate that there exists no issue of fact that it did not owe the plaintiffs a legal duty, thus entitling it to judgment as a matter of law.