and the relationship between disease and tobacco use. According to plaintiffs, the breach of this duty caused more smokers to smoke, and the public hospitals to bear increased health costs. The existence of a special duty is an issue of law in Washington. Hanse v. Friend, 118 Wash.2d 476, 479, 824 P.2d 483 (1992). Even assuming the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” created a special duty to the public health community, plaintiffs cannot establish that any breach proximately caused the damages claimed. State of Washington v. American Tobacco Co., 1996 WL 931316, *8 No. 96-2-15056-8 SEA, (Wash.Super Nov. 19, 1996) (rejecting similar special duty claim under Washington law against Tobacco defendants); Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative, 99 Wash.2d 609, 617, 664 P.2d 474 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In addition, a claim of a breach of a special
holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury