Summarize this text: 
In negligence claims, the plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the injured party, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) a causal link between the breach and the injury. NAME_1, 766 N.W.2d 317, 320 (Minn. 2009). Without a legal duty, the negligence claim fails (NAME_2, 599 N.W.2d 127, 130 (Minn. 1999)). The existence of a duty of care is a question of law that appellate courts review NAME_3 (NAME_4, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn. 2011)).
NAME_5 asserts that it only acted due to its subcontract with NAME_6. and, therefore, even if it breached its contractual duty to NAME_6., it bears no responsibility in tort to Village Homes. However, Minnesota law states that a contractor has a duty, independent of the contract, to construct a building in a reasonably good and workmanlike manner (Arden Hills N. Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc., 475 N.W.2d 495, 499-500 (Minn. App. 1991), aff'd mem., 505 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1993)).
NAME_5 argues that this principle does not apply because, during construction, NAME_6. was the owner, not Village Homes, and any duty owed by NAME_5 was to NAME_6. NAME_5 cites that in cases relied on by Village Homes, such as NAME_7, 272 Minn. 112, 138 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1965), and Arden Hills N. Homes Ass'n, the negligence cause of action was brought by the owner of the defective buildings.
