1) Having become convinced that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is unjust, the State Legislature in State X enacted a statute that provides, “Liability of the state and its agencies shall henceforth be determined by the rules applicable to suits between private parties.” After the effective date of the act, Alex Drivero tiled suit against State X seeking to recover damages for injuries he sustained when the vehicle he was driving overturned while he was making a sharp curve on a state highway. Drivero alleged (1) that state was negligent in its improper design of the road; and (2) that the state negligently failed to erect a sign warning drivers to drive slower because of the sharp turn ahead. Drivero claimed that such negligent acts were the proximate cause of his accident and resultant injuries. The state moved to dismiss Drivero’s complaint, arguing that although the state waived its immunity from tort actions, nevertheless, the state could not be held liable because the design of the road and whether to post a warning sign were governmental planning functions for which the state could not be held liable. What ruling would you expect the court to make? Why?
2) Sgt. Don Vetero retired after more than twenty years service in the U.S. Army. He draws a monthly pension and usually receives his medical treatments from a hospital at a nearby army base. Recently a military physician treated him for an infection of his right toe. Unfortunately, a few days later the infection worsened and he was taken to the emergency room at a civilian hospital. There the treating physician told him that it appeared the prior treatment from the military hospital had exacerbated the infection and his right toe would have to be amputated. Is Sgt. Vetero barred from filing a claim against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act? Why or why not?