The Issue is whether or not the FDA should be held liable for the death of Mrs. Lanuzzi since they did not start to regulate labeling of tobacco until 1960.
Negligence is a legitimate obligation owed from the defendant to the offended party, which was broken, the offended party endured injuries and the breach of obligation was the actual cause of the injury. The courts should defer to agency’s interpretations unless they are unreasonable. But the rule applies to statutory interpretations and not to informal reports. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) reports “when a federal court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.” In United States v. Mead Corp., “when the agency does not invoke its rulemaking authority sufficiently to merit Chevron deference, for example in an unpublished decision, a lower form of deference under Skidmore, supra, still may apply, in which deference is accorded commensurate with the merits of the agency opinion.”
Lanuzzi claims that Phillip Morris breached their duty. They did not aware the consumers about the link between cancer & smoking and owed their duty. The actual reason for death of Lanuzzi was cancer however her smoking of the Phillip Morris …show more content…
Lanuzzi did not stop smoking, but continued to smoke even she was aware of the risks of smoking. Phillip Morris claims that Lanuzzi was already a smoker for at least 9 years before the warning labels placed on the cigarette packages. The actual cause of the Lanuzzi death was cancer and not from the cigarette that is not having warning labels in the 1950’s. Although Lanuzzi was a smoker for a long time, she expected the risks by keeping on smoking after the warning labels were placed. However, She argues that she smoked at a very young age; she did not aware about the risks of smoking and died from lung cancer at the age of
Negligence is a legitimate obligation owed from the defendant to the offended party, which was broken, the offended party endured injuries and the breach of obligation was the actual cause of the injury. The courts should defer to agency’s interpretations unless they are unreasonable. But the rule applies to statutory interpretations and not to informal reports. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) reports “when a federal court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.” In United States v. Mead Corp., “when the agency does not invoke its rulemaking authority sufficiently to merit Chevron deference, for example in an unpublished decision, a lower form of deference under Skidmore, supra, still may apply, in which deference is accorded commensurate with the merits of the agency opinion.”
Lanuzzi claims that Phillip Morris breached their duty. They did not aware the consumers about the link between cancer & smoking and owed their duty. The actual reason for death of Lanuzzi was cancer however her smoking of the Phillip Morris …show more content…
Lanuzzi did not stop smoking, but continued to smoke even she was aware of the risks of smoking. Phillip Morris claims that Lanuzzi was already a smoker for at least 9 years before the warning labels placed on the cigarette packages. The actual cause of the Lanuzzi death was cancer and not from the cigarette that is not having warning labels in the 1950’s. Although Lanuzzi was a smoker for a long time, she expected the risks by keeping on smoking after the warning labels were placed. However, She argues that she smoked at a very young age; she did not aware about the risks of smoking and died from lung cancer at the age of