Defendants argue that they neither owed nor assumed any legal duty with respect to these Plaintiffs. 324A or the factors enumerated in Cracraft need be considered where a legal duty does not generally exist. Both sides examine the four factors enumerated in Cracraft . The court did not hold that section 324A was controlling, nor do we accept that premise here. The claim, however, is not thus based.
Defendants admit they agreed to research the area of tobacco-related diseases and report findings.
Nor do Defendants explain how any legal duty they owed to the general public is distinguishable from any owed to Plaintiffs. The distinction between a special duty, or one voluntarily undertaken, and a general legal duty is important where negligence is alleged. Because the claims are not based on negligence, the distinction between a special duty and general legal duty is a distinction without a difference. Accordingly, ignoring the issue of physical harm to the public, the fact that economic rather than physical harm has allegedly been suffered by these Plaintiffs is not dispositive. The public policy rationale behind tort law is one of allocation of losses arising out of human activities.