With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . Emphasis added. 12 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 958 (“In Hutto, as in Watson and Pittman, the court obviously considered the shooting to have been 'accidental,' at least from the victim’s standpoint .. .”)(citing Watson v. Nat’l Burial Ass'n, Inc., 234 Miss. 749, 107 So.2d 739 (1958); Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Hutto, 401 So.2d 1277 (Miss.1981)). 13 . Pittman, 59 So.2d at 553 (quoting Verschleiser v. Joseph Stern Son, Inc., 229 N.Y. 192, 128 N.E. 126, 127 (N.Y.1920)). 14 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 958. 15 . Id. 16 . Miller, 444 So.2d at 370-71. 17 . Id. at 371. This interlocutory appeal of the under the MWCA for intentional injuries, the assailant co-workers are arguably acting within the course and scope of their employment. See, e.g., Royal Oil Co. v. Wells, 500 So.2d 439, 441-42 (Miss.1986)(<HOLDING>); Miller, 444 So.2d at 371 (noting that injury

A: holding that state jurisdiction over claims by union members against employer for false arrest false imprisonment and malicious prosecution were not preempted under garmon
B: holding the same for malicious prosecution
C: holding that employees claims against her employer for malicious prosecution arising out of a supervisors charge that she had stolen money from a cash register was not barred by the mwca and noting that the supervisor who instigated false charges against her is not a third person for purposes of the act
D: holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea
C.