With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". circumstances.”). Because we agree with the rationale in McCloud I, we reject Gulf’s attempt to differentiate this case on the aforementioned basis. 7 . In Carnes, this court applied the "going and coming rule” and declined to adopt the "employee’s own conveyance rule” in finding that a newspaper delivery person was not acting within the course and scope of her employment as she drove her vehicle home after completing her deliveries for the day. 227 Ariz. at 34, VI, 251 P.3d at 413. In general, under the going and coming rule, "an employer is not liable for the tortious acts of his employee while the employee is going to or returning from his place of employment." Id. at 35, V 11, 251 P.3d at 414 (quoting State v. Superior Court (Schraft), 111 Ariz. 130, 132, 524 P.2d 951, 953 (1974) (<HOLDING>)). The employee's own conveyance rule is a

A: recognizing that reimbursement of a national guardsmans travel expenses in the form of a mileage allowance did not bestow in the state a right of control
B: holding that the protest statutes use of the word cumulative means the statute is in addition to the existing right of reimbursement for taxes wrongfully demanded not intended to destroy that legal right
C: holding that a defendant who accepts the benefits of control release waives any argument that application of the control release program in the form of the forfeiture of gain time was an ex post violation because control release was enacted after the date of his or her offenses
D: holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control
A.