With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be admissible in a negligent entrustment action to show notice on the part of the railroad company. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs negligent entrustment claim. Defendant asserts that because the engineer was indisputably acting within the scope of employment in driving the train at the time of the accident, respondeat superior applies, and negligent entrustment is, therefore, superfluous. This court agrees and grants defendants motion for summary judgment on this issue. Although South Carolina apparently has not addressed this issue, the general rule is that when vicarious liability has been admitted, a plaintiff may not proceed on a negligent entrustment theory. See Hackett v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 736 F.Supp. 8, 9-11 (D.D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>) (citing Houlihan v. McCall, 197 Md. 130, 78

A: holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred
B: holding that the employers party was a social event thus the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment when drinking at a party or when she was driving home afterwards
C: holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted
D: holding that negligent entrustment claim is unnecessary prejudicial and redundant when defendant employer admits that the employee was acting within the scope of employment
D.