On 2/1/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It seems to me that he is basically right. The doctrine is [[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people working in an official capacity.
Anthony
I looked at the article [[respondeat superior]]. It typically applies only to people in a relationship of employer/employee.
"is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment."
The problem is that there are only two people in that type of situation. Others are not a relationship of employer/employee. Neither the board members, nor the officers (except possibly Danny, but he is not employed as an officer).
So, I am not sure how this doctrine exactly applies to us.
Well, you're probably right. I thought this discussion was more focussed on potential future outsiders. Outsiders of course are going to want to be compensated, and most likely in an employer/employee relationship in terms of officers.
All that said, within the US volunteer officers are likely protected under the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. But, of course, you and many officers/board members aren't in the US. I don't know very much about non-US jurisdictions (I believe the doctrine of respondeat superior does exist in a broad range of jurisdictions though).
When it comes to directors (which I would term as different from "officers", though some people may be both, for instance Jimbo is President (an officer position) and Director, the liability limitations can even vary somewhat drastically from state to state. Florida is not a very popular place for incorporation, and there isn't nearly as much case law as there is in for instance Delaware or Nevada.
Now, what I think bother Gerard is this : what if a volunteer answers in OTRS and does so in the name of the Foundation, even though he has received no authority/delegation to do so? Will he be protected ? Probably not. He is even liable to the Foundation and should the Foundation be threatened by the answer given by the volunteer, the Foundation could indeed defend itself by suing the volunteer. In that sense, yes, the volunteer is *less* protected than the board member/officer. But here, I think the volunteer must use common sense and not "imply" he is talking in the name of the Foundation when he is not. Or if he does so, it is best he be careful of his answer.
Yeah, I have no idea. I thought y'all were talking about something completely different, really :). I should probably just bow out of this one.
Anthony