Open Legal Memorandum

[Name of the institute]Open Legal Memorandum

To:

From:

Date: April 9, 2012

RE: Qualification of Anton's Immunity as a volunteer in a charitable organization

Question Presented

With regard to the given case there are two questions that are needed to be answered. The first question is related to the immunity of Anton in general. The first question asks whether Anton qualifies for the immunity under the act or not. The second question is related to the Mr. Moss case and actions taken by Anton in the case. The second question asks if Anton has the immunity under the act then whether this immunity is applicable to the type of conduct alleged by Mr. Moss.

Brief Answer

In a brief way, the answers to the two questions are discussed here. The first question asks whether Anton qualifies for the immunity or not. The answer to this first question is that any individual who works as a volunteer in a not for profit or charitable organization is not held liable for any injuries, deaths or loses that occur in general. The second question asks that if Anton has immunity then whether this immunity can be implied in the scenario and background of this case. As mentioned in the answer of the first question is that any volunteer who works in a charitable and not for profit organization then this volunteer cannot be held liable for any sort of damages that occur hence this means that volunteers have immunity. The case that is given here, in this case Anton is also a volunteer but here he would not have immunity rather he would be held liable for his deeds and actions. Usually volunteers get immunity until and unless they take actions with full and prior knowledge, when they take action to intentionally torturing and when actions are taken willfully. In this case immunity is not available for Anton because his actions are taken willfully. His actions can also be defined as intentionally torturing. As Anton forces Mr. Moss to increase the amount that he donate to the building funds. This force that is exerted by Anton on Mr. Moss can be torturing for Mr. Moss. So, because of this reason Anton would be held liable for his actions and immunity would not be available to Anton.

Statement of Facts

There are few things that are important to be noted in the case. The first and the most important fact that is to be considered is that Anton is voluntarily work for a church. Anton works as the treasurer of the church. As he works as the treasure so he has knowledge about the financial aspects of other members of the church. Utilizing the same knowledge and information Anton forces a man with the name of Moss to do more charity work as he possess a lot of financial assets. The act of Anton to use the personal financial information to increase the donations and funding for the church is considered as the extortion according to the Ohio ...