With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim would also be brought against the educational institution which trained its allegedly negligent alumnus. Id. at 115. Fourth, the court explained that recognizing a third-party educational malpractice action would force the courts to interfere with the internal operations of an educational institution, which the court was reluctant to do. Id. at 115. 10 . Dram Shop cases assert either direct or third-party causes of action against tavern owners for injuries caused to or by intoxicated patrons. 11 . See also Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake, Del. Supr., 594 A.2d 38 (1991) (abandoning doctrine of lex loci delicti and adopting "most significant relationship" test for resolving choice of law questions in tort actions); Garrison v. Medical Ctr. of Del., Inc., Del.Supr., 581 A.2d 288 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.,

A: recognizing as viable actions in tort negligent hiring and negligent retention
B: recognizing actionable claim for negligent performance of medical procedure and negligent delay in transmitting results of tests as they relate to child born with birth defect but refusing to recognize action for wrongful life
C: recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action
D: holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn
B.