Absolutely not. What makes you think that? A volunteer does not equal an employee.
My apologies then -- sometimes I get my terminology mixed up. The correct term would probably be "agent." Historically the courts have held that Elders and Ministerial Servants count as "agents" of Watchtower, but not anyone lower. Many Plaintiffs have tried to argue that Pioneers and lay members are also agents in an attempt to stretch liability, but the argument hasn't really been well accepted. That was my point.
Well, the trial judge believed there was enough evidence that they disregarded the risk of harm to send punitive damages to the jury, and the jury accepted Rick Simons' argument that the WTS was at least indifferent as to preventing abuse.
I think you have it confused. If there is no special relationship between Watchtower and Conti, then that means there is no duty of care. Without a duty of care, and without any direct harm caused to Plaintiff, there are no grounds for any other claims against Watchtower period, and the entire case must be scrapped. It would be chocked up to Judge's error more than Jury's, because the Jury was given bad instructions (and I also believe that the Judge is the one who determines whether a duty of care exists, so it would be even more on his shoulders). I quote this following case a lot, because it is so similar to Conti:
"When the plaintiff Bryan R. was an adolescent he was molested by an adult member of his Jehovah’s Witness congregation, the defendant Baker. Some years before Baker had molested another child in the community. At the time, he was disciplined by the elders for his misdeeds, but later was permitted to resume his activities as an ordinary member within the congegation. Bryan alleged that the church and its elders were liable to him for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that manner in which the elders dealt with Baker’s earlier transgressions and the elders’ failure to warn him about Baker made it possible for Baker to obtain the plaintiff’s trust and to have the opportunity to assault him. The plaintiff’s claims against the church and the elders were dismissed. The court held there was no duty to protect members of the congregation from the wrongdoing of others." Bryan R. v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York (1999) at para 27-28
And based on what has been reported and my own experience in the organization, I don't doubt for a second that elders have been told by headquarters to discourage victim reporting without explicitly saying not to.
That is all a lovely opinion, but you have no evidence for it, and so I do not give it any weight, just as a court would give it no weight.
There is a reason that the instructions are to call legal on the phone, and not to write or email.
Yes, and those reasons can still include protecting children while simultaneously making smart decisions in a volatile and dangerous legal situation, as child abuse cases always are. As a Man of Law, you of all people should understand and appreciate Watchtower instructing Elders, who have little to no legal knowledge whatsoever, to call people experienced in Law before acting. In any case, your assumptions are unwarranted.
A judge in a court of law found that in this case, there IS a duty to protect others from harm.
A trial level Judge in an isolated, non-precedent setting case cannot overrule legal principles that are hundreds of years old and that have been affirmed by numerous Appellate and Supreme Court cases. That is the entire reason for the appeal, and that is why the ruling will likely be overturned. The trial Judge was wrong, period. Even you yourself seem to admit it grudgingly, calling such a ruling "unusual," meaning against the norm, meaning contradictory to other rulings.
But putting legal principles aside, I believe that the WTS deserves to eat this one.
That is well and good, but remember that Law should always be objective and blind. Even if you have some sort of serious grudge against Watchtower, justified or not, that should have no bearing whatsoever on the correct application of Law in this particular and specific case. Work on separating your very sharp legal mind from your emotions.