Johnson worked for Security Agents, Inc. as a security guard at a building in New York City owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Abu Dhabi. While the building was being renovated, Johnson slipped and fell on something "that had been spilled on the floor." Contending that he suffered permanent injuries in the fall, he sued the Abu Dhabi government in tort for his injuries. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the government was immune due to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Johnson appealed. Does the Act bar his suit?
a. Yes, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that a sovereign should never be subject to litigation in a foreign court.b. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their commercial activities.c. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to U.S. companies and their agents from bribing foreign officials, not to commercial activities involving foreign nations.d. Yes, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects countries and their officials in international business transactions.

b. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their commercial activities.

Explanation:

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) is a law that protects foreign states by defending them as immune from US court cases. This law also argues that the immunity of these states is not unlimited and sets limits for cases where such immunity is required. Based on this, we can state that in the case set out in the above question, we can state that the law does not prohibit Johnson's lawsuit against the Abu Dhabi government, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune to the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their business activities.