With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the franchisee’s work). 25 . Kerl, 682 N.W.2d at 340. 26 . Id. at 337. 27 . Id. 28 . Id. at 340. 29 . Mat 341. 30 . Id. 31 . Id. at 342. Opinion by Justice SCOTT Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Although I agree that summary judgment was proper on Gary McCoy’s claims against the franchisor, Papa John’s International, Inc., the majority goes too far in insulating employers from liability for intentional torts committed by their employees. Thus, I write separately to address the malicious prosecution claim against RWT, Inc. In my view, summary judgment on that claim was improper because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wendell Burke, the delivery driver, was acting within the scope of his employment with RWT at the time of the reporting of the m 48) (<HOLDING>); Fournier v. Churchill Downs-Latonia, 292 Ky.

A: holding that a hospital was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an orderly
B: holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability
C: holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim
D: holding the proprietors of a saloon vicariously liable for a bouncers assault and battery of a patron
D.