A volunteer at a government entity or nonprofit may be protected from a negligence claim if the mistake happens while doing his volunteer work. For example, if an unpaid worker at a rescue group accidentally forgets to give an adopter the dog’s veterinary records, he cannot be sued for negligence. However, the rescue group itself could still be held responsible if the volunteer’s negligence caused harm.
The following is a general summary of the protections given to volunteers. The nuances, exceptions, and qualifications of the laws have been omitted, so if you are a volunteer, talk to a lawyer; if you are an attorney, be sure to read the law itself!
Legal Protections for Volunteers
The Federal Volunteer Protection Act (VPA) (42 U.S.C. § 14501 et seq.) protects volunteers from personal liability for ordinary negligence if they are acting within the scope of their duties at a qualified nonprofit or government entity, does not protect against:
- Gross negligence or recklessness
- Willful or criminal misconduct
- Harm caused while operating a vehicle (unless covered by insurance)
State Laws that are similar to the VPA may also provide immunity for volunteers. The specifics vary from state to state, and not all states have their own version.
Liability of the Nonprofit Organization
If the volunteer was acting within his duties, the nonprofit itself may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (employer liability for employee/agent actions).
The nonprofit may have insurance coverage (such as general liability insurance or directors & officers (D&O) insurance) that covers claims against volunteers.
If the volunteer was working for a government entity, the requirements of the entity’s tort claims act must also be met.
When a Volunteer Can Be Sued
Volunteers can be sued if:
- They were grossly negligent or acted recklessly.
- They engaged in misconduct, fraud, or criminal activity.
- The claim falls outside the scope of protections under the VPA or state laws that give similar protection to volunteers.
Changes Are Needed to Prevent Abuse of the Volunteer Protection Act
The public needs protection against people who are abusing the immunity given by the Volunteer Protection Act.
As presently written, the VPA and the versions of it adopted by many states are shielding not only the innocent volunteers but also the ones who have done major harm.
A person can join a rescue, promote or place dogs with known dangerous histories, and when someone is disfigured or killed, they hide behind the nonprofit label. Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips refers to these people as “humaniacs,” meaning folks who put the welfare of animals over the safety of people.
The statute’s exception for “willful” or “gross” misconduct sounds tough, but almost no fatal or catastrophic dog attacks are prosecuted. Proving “gross” misconduct in civil court is extremely difficult. In practice, this operates as a get-out-of-liability card.
On paper, the immunity applies to the volunteer, not the rescue group itself. But in the real world, that distinction means very little. Volunteers are often the only people involved who have jobs, homes, assets, and insurance. They are the only realistic defendants.
The rescue group, by contrast, frequently has no meaningful assets and no liability insurance. So when the volunteer is immunized, the only party with the ability to compensate a mauled child or a grieving family is taken off the table. The “organization” that pushed the dog into the community often has nothing to collect.
If lawmakers are serious about public safety, two changes are necessary.
First, the Volunteer Protection Act should not shield a volunteer of an animal rescue organization who previously was instrumental in placing an animal that caused bodily injury to a human being. Once a volunteer has helped put a dangerous dog into the community and someone gets hurt, that person should not get another immunity pass the next time.
Second, the law should not protect an animal rescue organization that previously adopted out an animal that harmed a human being. Additionally, the organization should automatically forfeit its nonprofit status.
Charitable status is a privilege. It is granted to serve the public interest. When an organization repeatedly advances animal placement over human safety, it is no longer acting as a charity. It is acting as a hazard.
ommunities deserve better than a system that protects ideologues and leaves victims with no one to hold accountable.