With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant knew or should have known that Sail and Ouldhanni were harassing other women, and therefore, that they might also harass Plaintiff. From a evidentiary standpoint, Plaintiff has presented enough evidence to proceed against Defendant under a claim of negligent supervision. Defendant’s second argument that Plaintiffs claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act is more problematic. The parties have not cited, and the Court has been unable to locate, any Kentucky case law dealing with this precise point of law. Thus, this Court must predict how the state’s highest court would rule. Dinsmore Instrument Co. v. Bombardier, Inc., 199 F.3d 318, 320 (6th Cir.1999). 846 (Ky.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Edwards v. Louisville Ladder, 957 S.W.2d 290,

A: recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
B: holding that exclusivity provision of workers compensation act barred wifes loss of consortium claim
C: holding that coal workers claim that mine owner was negligent careless and reckless in its mining operations was barred under exclusivity provision of workers compensation act
D: holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
B.