With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the very next section, Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2, provides that “[a] public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2. Sunnyvale is therefore vicariously liable for any assault and battery or negligence by its officers. Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 488 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that § 815.2 “clearly allows for vicarious liability of a public entity when one of its police officers uses excessive force in making an arrest”); Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 425 Fed.Appx. 539, 542 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Sunnyvale also argues “the complaint fails to

A: holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties
B: holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability
C: holding that public entities may be held vicariously hable for the negligent acts of their individual employees
D: holding that absent facts that showed that an agency relationship existed a surgeon may not be presumed to be a principal and therefore was not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the nurses in the operating room
C.