is a breach of duty or the foreseeability of harm will depend on what Defendants knew or should have known at the time Baycol was prescribed and whether Defendants acted reasonably based on the knowledge it had at that time.”). 128 . June 24, 2005 Tr. at 12, lines 33-39. 129 . Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d at 145. 130 . See Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co., 160 F.R.D. 667, 677 (N.D.Ohio 1995) (”[T]he resolution of the general causation question accomplishes nothing for any individual plaintiff."); See also Harding v. Tambrands, 165 F.R.D. 623, 630 (D.Kan.1996) ("Certification would not materially advance the disposition of the litigation as a whole. A finding of 'general causation’ would do little to advance this litigation.”); Arch v. American Tobacco, Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. at 488 (<HOLDING>); In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch, 194
holding that when the evidence shows that the railroad customarily does not enforce a safety rule the jury is entitled to consider whether that custom constituted negligence and whether it caused in whole or in part the plaintiffs injury holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the causation elements of products liability and negligence claims by proving that all cigarettes can potentially cause a user to become addicted because a jury would still be required to determine for each class member whether he or she is addicted to cigarettes and if so whether defendants and which defendant caused the addiction holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence holding that it was for the jury to determine whether the plaintiff would have continued to smoke cigarettes if not for philip morriss nondisclosures and whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on the false controversy created by the tobacco industry after may 5 1982