With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001). In light of these developments, the Alaskan Village rule may be anachronistic. If and when the point is properly preserved and raised, this court may consider adopting the narrower complicity rule. 10 . See Stephenson v. United States, 711 F.2d 1105, 1107 (7th Cir.1985) (relying on Wisconsin law to say that "it is the employee's conduct at the time of the accident that determines whether he is acting within the scope of his employment"). 11 . Doe v. Samaritan Counseling Ctr., 791 P.2d 344, 346 (Alaska 1990). 12 . Id. at 347; accord Williams v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 650 P.2d 343, 349 (Alaska 1982); Luth v. Rogers & Babler Constr. Co., 507 P.2d 761, 764 & n. 14 (Alaska 1973) (rejecting proposition so Norcon, Inc., 971 P.2d at 170 (<HOLDING>). 23 . At trial Laidlaw did not object to Dr.

A: holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
B: holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial
C: holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court
D: holding that employer waived issue on appeal of whether employees testimony was unduly prejudicial by failing to object when testimony was offered at trial
D.