With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". when negligent acts causing injury to employees are. committed outside the course and scope of their managerial or policy-making functions. Hawkins v. Cordy, 642 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Under Florida’s Worker’s Compensation Act, an employer who secures worker’s compensation coverage for his employees receives extensive immunity from suit by injured workers. Eller v. Shova, 630 So.2d 537, 540-41 (Fla.1993). Florida courts interpret the Act broadly to preserve immunity in the face of sometimes egregious acts by employers and managers, as long as those acts fall short of intentional torts, culpable negligence or serious criminal misconduct. See Byers v. Ritz, 890 So.2d 343, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see also Mekamy Oaks, Inc. v. Snyder, 659 So.2d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>); Emergency One, Inc. v. Keffer, 652 So.2d

A: holding that employer could be subject to contribution claim based on the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity when there was evidence that employer had removed safety guards from printing presses had been warned of the dangers but refused to reinstall the guards disregarding safety notices about the machinery and had instructed employees to engage in dangerous practices
B: holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional
C: holding that prohibition may not be used to raise affirmative defense of workers compensation immunity
D: holding that employer retained workers compensation immunity where supervisor removed safety switch from lawnmower causing plaintiff to be thrown from mower and cut his foot
D.