the United States may be held liable for the actions of CAMcare and its employees, the Court must determine the liability of—and immunities and defenses available to—a similarly-placed private healthcare employer in like circumstances under New Jersey law. Plaintiff argues that there is no reason why immunity under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act, which is meant to protect nonprofit organizations and hospitals like CAMcare, should still apply in this case now that the United States has been substituted in for CAMcare. (See PI. Br. at 17-20.) On this question, however, the law is long-settled: the United States is entitled to assert “any defenses available to a similarly-placed private employer answering for the alleged torts of its employee.” Lomando v. United 3 (D.N.J. 1996) (<HOLDING>). B. The New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act The
holding that united states in ftca action may rely on immunities available to a private automobile owner covered by new jerseys nofault insurance law even though it was not literally the owner of an automobile under the new jersey statute holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller holding that assignment of insureds rights to coverage for property damage under automobile insurance policy to automobile repairer was invalid because of antiassignment provision recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey