to their insureds. Plaintiffs also claim to provide advice about smoking and health, and directly purchase nicotine products to treat those addicted to tobacco. Plaintiffs rely on these alleged differences to argue that they have standing to bring their claims in this litigation. The Court is unconvinced; these claimed differences in the structure and functions of the Public Hospital Districts do not support standing to bring these antitrust and RICO claims. Plaintiffs bring claims wh aws that directly impacted their medical practice. However, these cases do not provide support for granting plaintiffs standing under the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also base standing on the duty owed by hospitals to their patients. See Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wash.2d 39, 48, 929 P.2d 420 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wash.2d 242, 248, 814
holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient holding that upon admission to a hospital the hospitals lien attached to the proceeds of all insurance claims accruing to the patient or his legal representative as a result of the patients hospitalization holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school