breached their parental duties to Niclas and that such conduct resulted in his death. (Doc. 32 at ¶ 35 (alleging that the Vanhorns while acting as Niclas’s host parents “were acting in loco parentis”).) To the extent such duties may have existed, they would only have arisen through the Vanhorns’ responsibilities as Niclas’s host family. (See Medical Release, Doc. 40-1 at 17; Participation Agreement, id. at 18; Liability Release, id. at 28-29); see Avenoso, 2006 WL 490340, at *5 (noting that the plaintiffs own affidavit confirmed the conduct occurred in the course and scope of the volunteer activity). That is the case even if World Experience was not aware of the individualized choices the Vanhorns made on a day-to-day basis regarding that role. See Elliot, 2007 WL 757891, at *3 (<HOLDING>). The Vanhorns were acting within the course
holding that the individual supervising a sixteen yearold when he drowned at a la quinta inn while on a trip with a community youth basketball team was immune pursuant to the volunteer protection act holding that the incorporation of community standards by itself did not make the child online protection act unconstitutionally overbroad holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that firefighter who was expelled from volunteer fire company could not bring declaratory action seeking declaratory judgment that provision under which he was expelled was overbroad because he had not alleged with sufficiently credible facts that the challenged provision would be applied against him in the future holding that pinelands commission regulation adopted pursuant to pinelands protection act act trumped mluls preexisting nonconforming use protection because act expressly provided that its implement ing regulations superseded mlul when there was a conflict