With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". East Central by the Six-Foot Rule is one for contribution instead of indemnification, it does not change the result in this case because the amendatory endorsement here excludes coverage of "any obligation of the insured to indemnify or contribute with another because of damages arising out of the bodily injury,” Aplt's App., vol. II, Ex. F at 378 (emphasis added). 4 . Section 981 provides, No person, firm, corporation or association shall, individually or through an agent or employee and no person as an agent or employee of any person, firm, corporation or association, shall perform or permit any agent or employee to perform any function or activity upon any land, building, highway, pensation Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 12, see Ring v. Public Serv. Co., 775 P.2d 1356, 1357 (Okla.1989) (<HOLDING>); Travelers Ins. Co. v. L.V. French Truck

A: holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability
B: holding that the immunity afforded an employer under the workers compensation act ohastat tit 85  12 does not shield it from liability to a power company for a loss paid by the employer because of a violation of the sixfoot rule okla stat tit 63  981
C: holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
D: holding that under oklastat tit 63  984 the power line company can recover from the employer of an employee injured by the power line the percentage of the employers negligence as determined by a jury
B.