[SOLVED] Plaintiff [Loredana Pantano] slipped and fell on

Plaintiff [Loredana Pantano] slipped and fell on icy steps at an entrance to the [Newark] Museum, suffering injuries to her back. At the time, plaintiff was employed as an immigration attorney by La Casa de Don Pedro (La Casa), a nonprofit organization located in Newark [New Jersey]. Upon arrival at her office that day, plaintiff was told by La Casa’s Director of Personal Development to go to the Museum for an educational panel discussion being held as part of La Casa’s fortieth anniversary celebration.
The event was one of several organized to celebrate and commemorate the organization’s history and role in the development of Newark. Staff members were not directly engaged in fundraising, but they were told to mingle with those attending the event, some of whom were contributors to La Casa. The Museum charged La Casa a fee for the use of the facility, specifically an auditorium to be used by the panel and those in attendance.
The Museum is a nonprofit association organized exclusively for charitable, artistic, scientific, educational, historical and cultural purposes. It does, on occasion, rent its facilities to the public in order to generate income.
Plaintiff filed suit in a New Jersey state court against the Museum alleging the Museum was negligent in its maintenance of the premises. The Museum moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff was a direct beneficiary of its charitable endeavors.
The judge granted the Museum’s motion, and this appeal followed.
Plaintiff contends that she was not a beneficiary of the Museum’s charitable purposes at the time of her fall because she was on the premises at the direction of her employer. We agree that pursuant to the [New Jersey Supreme] Court’s holding in Mayer v. Fairlawn Jewish Center, 38 N.J. 549, 186 A.2d 274 (1962), plaintiff was not a direct recipient of the Museum’s good works.
In pertinent part, the [state Charitable Immunity Act (CIA)] provides:
No nonprofit corporation shall be liable to respond in damages to any person who shall suffer damage from the negligence of such corporation where such person is a beneficiary, to whatever degree, of the works of such nonprofit corporation provided, however, that such immunity from liability shall not extend to any person where such person is one unconcerned in and unrelated to and outside of the benefactions of such corporation.
The CIA serves two primary purposes. First, immunity preserves a charity’s assets. Second, immunity recognizes that a beneficiary of the services of a charitable organization has entered into a relationship that exempts the benefactor from liability.
The established test for determining whether a party is a beneficiary of the works of a charity has two prongs. The first is that the institution pleading the immunity, at the time in question, was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance. The second is that the injured party must have been a direct recipient of those good works.
As to the first prong, a qualifying organization does not lose its statutory immunity merely because it charges money for its services, unless it makes a profit or collects fees for services totally unrelated to its organizational pursuits………………………………………………………………

Required:
1. How do the purposes of the CIA support each other?
2. Can a person be a direct beneficiary of a nonprofit’s good works even though the person is on the nonprofit’s premises under the direction of a third party? Explain.
3. Suppose that the Museum had not been hosting an educational panel in its auditorium but instead had rented the facility to an organization for a sales conference. Would the result have been different? Discuss.

Question: Plaintiff [Loredana Pantano] slipped and fell on