With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and no independent wrong is charged on behalf of the master, liability is entirely derivative, being founded upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. (Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 507, 533.) "[T]o impute the negligence of one person to another, such persons must stand in a relation of privity and there is no such thing as imputable negligence except in those cases where such a privity as master and servant or principal and agent exists.” (Palmer v. Miller (1942), 380 Ill. 256, 259-60.) The master’s liability is merely by reason of the contractual relationship. (Palmer, 380 Ill. at 259; see also W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 69 (5th ed. 1984).) Absent an employment relationship, the doctrine does not apply. See Palmer, 380 Ill. at 259-60 (<HOLDING>); see also Raglin v. HMO Illinois, Inc, (1992),

A: holding that minor cannot establish relationship of master and servant and so cannot be held liable under doctrine of respondeat superior
B: holding inter alia that a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory
C: holding governmental entity liable for malicious harassment of its employee under doctrine of respondeat superior
D: holding that municipality may not be held liable under  1983 upon theory of respondeat superior
A.