assumption of the parental role and its attendant duties all indicate that the Vanhorns had a more direct relationship with Plaintiffs. However, even drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs favor as to the relationship between the Vanhorns and Niclas and his family, there is no genuine dispute as to the Vanhorns’ relationship with World Experience. See Avenoso v. Mangan, 2006 WL 490340, at *5 (Conn.Super. Feb. 14, 2006) (unpublished) (granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant where the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to dispute the evidence showing the defendant was not compensated and acting in the course and scope of his volunteer duties at the time of the alleged conduct); cf. Manter v. Abdelhad, 2014 WL 7466738, at *3 (Mass.Super.Nov.7, 2014) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). The Federal Volunteer Protection Act was
holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff who was approaching a car to enter it as a passenger was occupying a motor vehicle holding genuine issue of fact existed as to whether previous judgment had a preclusive effect where relevant claims may have been dismissed before trial holding that no genuine dispute of fact existed as to whether the defendant church was a nonprofit organization where the plaintiff merely asserted she could not find it on the secretary of state website holding that summary judgment should be denied where the moving party does not show that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact with respect to each essential element of the claim holding that evidence of misconduct or a deficient work performance record precluded the plaintiff from establishing a genuine issue of material fact such that a reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff