Cited by

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).

The plaintiffs, citing Berry and Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190 (2000), argue that the “special circumstances” exception applies here.

.H. 148, 154-55 (2003) (private investigator owes duty to third party where disclosure of information to client creates foreseeable risk of criminal misconduct against third party); Dupont v. Aavid Thermal Technologies, 147 N.H. 706, 713 (2002) (plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts establishing employer’s duty to protect employee from imminent danger while at work); Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 194 (2001) (teenagers’ unruly behavior created unreasonable risk of injury to restaura

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 192 (2000).

The plaintiff relies upon Iannelli v. Burger King Corporation, 145 N.H. 190 (2000), in support of her position that “[a] duty exists on the part of a landowner when it is foreseeable that an injury might occur as a result of *26 the landowner’s actions or inactions.” Iannelli, however, did not concern a landlord-tenant relationship and, therefore, is not applicable to these facts.

r Couto’s prior behavior, particularly her alleged comment about forcing employees to quit by making things miserable for them, the trial court failed to “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion [for summary judgment], giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence.” Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000) (quotation omitted).

In the absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, we conclude that the trial court did not err by finding that “no genuine issues of material fact exist and that [the defendant] did not assume a duty to ensure that Colley/McCoy would follow several of its security measures designed to protect employees.” Next, the plaintiff, citing Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190 (2002), argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his negligence claim because “landowners

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).

Whether a defendant’s conduct creates a risk of harm to others sufficiently foreseeable to charge the defendant with a duty to avoid such conduct is a question of law, Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000), because “the existence of a duty does not arise solely from the relationship between the parties, but also from the need for protection against reasonably foreseeable harm.” Hungerford v. Jones, 143 N.H. 208, 211 (1998) (quotation omitted).

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000) (quotation and citations omitted).

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).

We have held that the duty to protect may arise because: (1) a special relationship exists, see Marquay v. Eno, 139 N.H. 708, 717 (1995) (“schools share a special relationship with students entrusted to their care, which imposes upon them certain duties of reasonable supervision”); (2) special circumstances exist, see Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 194 (2000) (unruly behavior of rowdy youths created unreasonable risk of injury to restaurant patrons and gave rise to duty of restaura

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Iannelli v. Burger King Corp.,.

“In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Ianelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193 (2000).