With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". thus a duty that would exist independent of the master-servant relationship, the petition will not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action for negligence.” Id. at 217. We further noted that “the parameters of a co-employee’s common law duties to fellow employees for workplace injuries may be influenced by a 2012 amendment to section 287.120.1 of the Act.” Id. at 217 n. 17. That amendment, which was enacted in response to Robinson, “legislatively afford[ed] immunity to co-employees unless a fellow employee is injured as : a result of the co-employee’s ‘affirmative negligent act that purposefully and dangerously caused or increased the risk of injury.’ ” Id. (quoting § 287.120.1); see also Shaw v. Mega. Indus. Corp., 406 S.W.3d 466, 474 n. 5 (Mo. App.W.D.2013) (<HOLDING>). The accident that gave rise to the Ker-shaws’

A: holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature
B: recognizing that the legislature has the sole power of enacting law
C: holding that statute would be applied retroactively when to do so would better effect the remedial intentions of the legislature in enacting it
D: recognizing that the legislature responded to the robinson decision by enacting  amendments to  2871201 in 2012
D.