law. The Government in making these funds available is like a donor. The issue as we see it is whether there is a duty upon a donor who gives money to another for the purposes of construction and maintenance of an operation and whether such donor is liable if the donor's employees fail to see that the construction work and the maintenance of the operation after construction are properly carried out in a situation in which the donor reserves the right to supervise, inspect, and cut off further contributions.
Assuming as we must for the purposes of this motion that employees of the federal government were negligent in carrying out their duties imposed under the federal highway program, is such negligence the basis for liability under the Tort Claims Act?
The Restatement of the Law of Torts has been followed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and would appear to contain the principles of law which the Supreme Court in enunciating the tort law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would follow. Section 288 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts provides as follows:
'The violation of a legislative enactment by doing a prohibited act or by failing to do a required act, does not make the actor liable for an invasion of an interest of another caused thereby, if the enactment is designed exclusively:
'(a) to protect the interests of the state or municipality, as such, or
'(b) to secure to individuals the enjoyment of rights or privileges to which they are entitled only as members of the public, or
'(c) to impose upon the actor the performance of a service which the state or municipality undertakes to give to the public, except where the actor is under a contract duty to perform a service which the state or municipality is under a legal duty to give.'
Here we are assuming for the purposes of the motion that the employee violated the federal enactment of inspection and supervision, but we feel that it is obvious that this enactment was designed exclusively to protect the interest of the United States to see that its monies were properly expended on plans which the federal authorities and the state authorities had worked out. We do not think that merely because the donor gives money to someone in order that the donee might construct a project or a building could impose liability on the donor. To do so, we would in effect say that any donor who makes a contribution to someone and reserves rights to inspect and approve the way money is spent would be held liable for any negligent act of the donee in the construction or the maintenance of the project. Such a principle of law would be completely foreign to the concept of tort law as we know it. To discuss every principle applicable would be to write a treatise on the law of torts. Certainly no judge should attempt to do that in one opinion. What we have tried to do here has been to set forth the issue as we see it. The problem presented has not been easy. The plaintiffs have endeavored to impose an unusual basis of liability. The Government instead of approaching this case on what we think would have been a sound and simple legal basis immediately has asserted the problem and the question of the discretionary exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have had arguments asserted as to the proprietary functions of government, mandatory requirements of government, and discretionary functions of government. While these are interesting questions, and ones on which great volumes can be written, we do not see the propriety of such questions in this case. We simply hold that there is no duty imposed by the law of the state in which this accident happened upon the United States whereby a private person would be liable to the claimant herein in accordance with the law in the place where the act occurred. Without such a duty being imposed by state law, there can be no liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the tort claims law is to be broadened to include coverage such as the plaintiff claims here, such a broadening of the Federal Tort Claims Act must come from Congress and not from this Court. We conclude that the Government's motion for summary judgment must be granted.