Even if there was a question of fact as to whether defendant was aware of the stove, plaintiff presented no evidence that either of defendant s plumbers ever saw the faulty connector. Further, the question presented here is whether defendant had a duty to inspect, not whether defendant breached that duty. Although a contract may give rise to a tort obligation, here, the plaintiffs seek an extension of that obligation to an appliance unrelated to the underlying contract. We conclude plaintiff s extension goes too far. No evidence was presented that defendant even knew the stove was still hooked up and in operable condition.
Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their second claim for relief.
In order to establish a claim under the CCPA, five elements must be present. Here, there is no indication that defendant s work on the water heater caused the plaintiff s injury. And, we have determined on the undisputed material facts that defendant had no duty to inspect the stove. Plaintiffs did not present evidence to counter the deposition testimony of Denver s chief heating and ventilating inspector that his personnel do not inspect other appliances within a house for safety issues, would not have looked behind the stove to check for a flexible connector, and would likely have ignored such a connector even if they had seen it. These opinions are not final.