Summary

Thurgood Marshall United States v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

No language in § 5 or elsewhere in the statute purports to restrict the phrases "any employee of the Government," as respondents urge, to reach only employees not protected from liability by another statute. When Congress wanted to limit the scope of immunity available under the Liability Reform Act, it did so expressly, as it did in preserving employee liability for Bivens actions and for actions brought under a federal statute authorizing recovery against the individual employee.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall United States v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

We need not decide whether a tort claim brought under state or foreign law could be deemed authorized by the Gonzalez Act, for we find that respondents' second argument-that a claim for malpractice involves "a violation of" the Gonzalez Act-is without merit. Nothing in the Gonzalez Act imposes any obligations or duties of care upon military physicians.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature