Opinion ID: 2196253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Duty of Care Argument

Text: Defendant also argues that her only duty was to assist the family court in its determination of the best interest of the child in connection with custody and visitation, and that she thus owed no duty of care to plaintiff. Defendant owed whatever duties of care to plaintiffand, for that matter, plaintiff's ex-husbandthe contract provided. See Peters v. Mindell, 159 Vt. 424, 429, 620 A.2d 1268, 1271 (1992) (Accompanying every contract is an implied duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience and faithfulness.). A determination on plaintiff's negligence claims stemming from defendant's alleged breaches of this duty should proceed accordingly. Thus, defendant's summary judgment motion on plaintiff's malpractice claim was properly denied.