With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts prevent the imposition of vicarious liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 427, 427A, and 427B even were we to adopt them. It is undisputed that Green did not set the fire that spread to Poteet's sawmill. Because these restatement sections would not impose vicarious lability on White given the undisputed facts in this case, we expressly decline to address in this appeal the issue of whether to adopt these sections in Utah. We therefore affirm. { 14 Chief Justice DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice WILKINS, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Justice DURRANT's opinion. 1 . Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). 2 . Ledfors v. Emery County Sch. Dist., 849 P.2d 1162, 1162 (Utah 1993). 3 . Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e) accord Johnson v. Hermes Assocs., 2005 UT 82, ¶ 20, 128 P.3d 1151 (<HOLDING>). 4 . See Johnson, 2005 UT 82, ¶ 20, 128 P.3d

A: holding that facts were not disputed because nonmovant failed to contest them with specific sworn evidence as required under rule 56e
B: holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden of establishing the applicability of the capableofrepetition exception where the respondent disputed only whether the specific facts that were established during the hearing in this specific adjudication were sufficient
C: holding that the affiants statement  based upon his belief  did not demonstrate the personal knowledge required by fedrcivp 56e
D: holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material
A.