[STC] has a duty to act non-negligently.” (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to STC’s Motion to Dismiss at 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that STC disseminated misleading information to promote the economic inter ests of the tobacco manufacturers. (See id.) “It is well established that one who voluntarily assumes a duty must exercise reasonable care or he will be responsible for damages resulting from his failure to do so.” Isler v. Burman, 305 Minn. 288, 232 N.W.2d 818, 822 (1975). Trade associations are not ordinarily found to have assumed a duty to the purchasing public unless they have some measure control over their manufacturing members or some direct involvement in the development or marketing the product. See Evenson v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 1345, 1349 (S.D.Ind.1990) (<HOLDING>); Harmon v. National Automotive Parts Ass’n,
holding that the defendant trade association which did not manufacture sell distribute design test conduct safety research on or set standards for the product could not be held to have owed a duty to the plaintiff holding that stateimposed standards of care relating to product design manufacture and testing do not qualify as labeling requirements and thus are not preempted by fifra holding that using a trade secret to produce a design for which a patent application is then submitted and using a product design to procure financing for development of that product constitute use holding that in a negligence claim there is no postsale duty to warn or remedy when the product was nondefective under standards existing at the time of manufacture holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed