In what circumstances will punitive damages be awarded against a manufacturer of an anti-cholesterol drug?

In Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, supra, 378 F.2d 832, a mass tort case involving an anti-cholesterol drug, MER/29, which caused adverse effects in some consumers, the court determined that the applicable New York law permitted punitive damages based on causes of action for negligence and fraud. However, the court observed that the several hundred cases pending against the single manufacturer of MER/29 bore little resemblance to the types of actions in which punitive damages have traditionally been awarded, where there were few victims and the prospects for litigation were clearly confined. (Id., at pp. 838-839.)