With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ass’n of Pa. v. DPW, 585 Pa. 106, 116 n. 12, 888 A.2d 601, 607 n. 12 (2005) (“In ruling on whether preliminary objections were properly sustained, an appellate court must determine whether it is clear and free from doubt from all the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief.” (citation omitted)). On the merits, I note that this Court has previously interpreted statutory provisions governing the training of police officers that are analogous to those in issue here as extending to officials who were not technically subject to their terms but nevertheless were cloaked with authority on a par with the police officers that the statute directly covered. See Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 96-97, 641 A.2d 299, 303 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I also believe that a demurrer

A: holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle 
B: holding that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs enforcing motor vehicle laws were required to meet the training requirements of the former municipal police officers education and training act 53 ps  7417491 repealed
C: holding that ems training lieutenants position met criteria because the lieutenants developed coordinated implemented and conducted ems training programs  prepared lesson plans and training aids supervised delivery of training and tests and evaluated new equipment
D: holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received
B.