With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was outside the scope and course of employment at the time of the accident. Id. at 478-479, 592 N.W.2d 46. In discussing specific employer benefit, the court gave the example of a mechanic who attends an examination given by a manufacturer and receives a certificate which allows his employer to advertise that it employs “a factory-trained mechanic.” Id. at 478, 592 N.W.2d 46. In evaluating the compulsory nature of plaintiffs attendance, the court stated that: “[S]ubstantial evidence supported the magistrate’s conclusion that attendance was neither compulsory nor definitely urged or expected [but] merely encouraged, and, as such, was not an incident of employment.” Id. See also Oberhauser v. Mabe, 2009 WL 2232012, No. CA2008-11266 at *6 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. July 27, 2009) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). In Allison v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 183

A: holding that where employee was not required to attend a seminar the school was not certain that it would adopt the prototypes she learned about at the seminar and employee was furthering a primarily personal interest in maintaining her teaching certificate employee was not in the course of her employment
B: holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment
C: holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship
D: holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy
A.