on the basis of public policy. Hotchkiss has recast its arguments regarding foreseeability as an issue of public policy. The two concepts are distinct and should be evaluated separately. Jaworski, 241 Conn. at 405, 696 A.2d 332 (“The final step ... is to make a determination of ‘the fundamental policy of the law ”) (citing Prosser & Keeton, On Torts § 43). Connecticut law requires courts to determine the existence of a duty by first evaluating whether a plaintiffs injury resulted from foreseeable risks. Monk, 273 Conn. at 114, 869 A.2d 179. If the court finds a foreseeable risk existed such that it fell within the scope of a defendant’s duty to exercise reasonable care, then the court proceeds to a public policy analysis. See, e.g., Jaworski, 241 Conn. at 404, 412, 696 A.2d 332 (<HOLDING>); RK Constructors, 231 Conn. at 387, 650 A.2d
holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries holding first that tortfeasor could have foreseen that victims employers insurance premiums might increase and then deciding that public policy precluded liability for those increases holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries holding that because claimants injuries were scheduled member injuries and not injury to his body as a whole any loss of earning capacity claimant may have sustained was irrelevant