- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,259
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Location
- By the water.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I didn't say that it was incorrect. I said it wasn't reliable. The article never says that an organization cannot be held liable for it's volunteers. It merely states that an organization can be held responsible for the acts of it's employees. You wrongly inferred from that that someone must be an employee, not a volunteer, before an organization could be held liable for the actions.
I cited FL law in re torts which specifically states that organizations can indeed be held liable for the acts of their volunteers, the wikipedia article notwithstanding.
I guess you missed at post. Would you like me to link to the post where I quote the relevant FL law?
Well here you go, get out your credit card and post from a 'reliable' source.
http://web2.westlaw.com/signon/default.wl?vr=2.0&fn=_top&rs=WLW12.07&bhcp=1
You can pay by the month or by the case/article.
Last edited: