With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would not permit the jury to find that appellant’s injury did not arise out of and in the scope of her employment. If this were a workers’ compensation proceeding and the deputy commissioner were to deny benefits by finding that the appellant was not within the course and scope of her employment, we would be compelled to reverse. In the present case, where appellant’s presence on the premises of her employer is clearly reasonably related to her employment, and where there is no evidence of any personal purpose for arriving early, a summary judgment finding her to be within the course and scope of her ic, as alleged by appellant, is immaterial in this case and therefore does not give rise to a disputed issue of fact. 5 . See, also, Grady v. Humana, 449 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Perhaps it is instructive to point out,

A: holding that there was sufficient evidence to go to a jury on an iied claim when an employee with eighteen years of service was summarily fired after being falsely accused of theft kept in a three hour meeting with no opportunity to leave or eat lunch and badgered to sign a confession
B: holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries
C: holding that the jury should determine whether an employee eating lunch in a hospital cafeteria was within the course and scope of employment where factual disputes arose as to whether he was eating lunch in a place required or encouraged by his employer whether other employees regularly ate there and whether the employee had a choice in where to eat lunch
D: holding that whether the tortious act was committed during the time the employee was on duty and whether the tortious act was committed while the employee was on the employers premises were both factors weighing in favor of finding the activity within the scope of employment
C.