With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". projects were to be supervised by at least two trained staff members. Id. Despite these policies and rules, when Sierra had been employed by AMI for only eight days, he was sent alone to supervise three youths on a work project, two of whom had recently been classified as escape risks. Sierra had not undergone the required training. He was not told of the risk status of the youths he was supervising. No one was assigned to accompany him. This court held that these facts were sufficient to establish the level of indifference to employee safety necessary to support an action against AMI. Other cases that have allowed actions to go forward against employers have involved a similar level of indifference to employee safety. See, e.g., EAC USA Inc. v. Kawa, 805 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Connelly v. Arrow Air, Inc., 568 So.2d 448

A: holding that oncall security guard was covered under insurance policy requiring him to be on the business of the employer where among other factors the employer benefitted from the arrangement by reducing the number of guards who had actually to be on duty
B: holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy
C: holding that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity includes an objective standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury
D: holding that employer could be subject to contribution claim based on the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity when there was evidence that employer had removed safety guards from printing presses had been warned of the dangers but refused to reinstall the guards disregarding safety notices about the machinery and had instructed employees to engage in dangerous practices
D.