With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 296 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Mo.App. E.D.2009), and Brummitt v. Springer, 918 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Mo.App. S.D.1996), for the proposition that, “[t]o be liable for official acts, a public official or employee must breach a ministerial duty imposed by statute or regulation.” Boever quoted Brummitt for this proposition. Boever, 296 S.W.3d at 492. Brummitt, in turn, relied upon Norton v. Smith, 782 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Mo.App. E.D.1989), which stated, “To be liable in tort for his or her official acts, p. E.D.1998) (relying on prison policy in holding that a prison nurse was not acting in a discretionary manner in maintaining and administering prisoners’ medication); Rush v. Senior Citizens Nursing Home Dist. of Ray Cnty., 212 S.W.3d 155, 161 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (<HOLDING>); Richardson v. City of St. Louis, 293 S.W.3d

A: holding that evidence existed to support bad result instruction when doctor admitted that patients care worsened under his care but denied that he was negligent
B: holding nurse was not entitled to official immunity where the petition alleged that she acted negligently in failing to follow doctors orders and her actions in following or not following those orders were ministerial
C: holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor
D: holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity
C.